{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_69751/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_69751","id":"gutenberg_69751","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/69751","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Other","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Civilization -- Philosophy","Ethnology","Race","Race relations"],"text":"THE INEQUALITY\n                             OF HUMAN RACES\n\n\n                            THE RENAISSANCE\n\n                By ARTHUR, COUNT GOBINEAU.\n\n                With an Introductory Essay on Count\n                Gobineau\u2019s Life-Work by Dr. Oscar Levy.\n                One Vol., Demy 8vo, Illustrated 10s net\n\n\n                          THE YOUNG NIETZSCHE\n\n                  By FRAU F\u00d6RSTER NIETZSCHE.\n                  One Volume, Demy 8vo, Price 15s net\n\n\n                          THE LONELY NIETZSCHE\n\n                  By FRAU F\u00d6RSTER NIETZSCHE.\n                  One Volume, Royal 8vo, Price 15s net\n\n\n                               NIETZSCHE\n\n                      By GEORGE BRANDES\n                      One Volume, Demy 8vo, 6s net\n\n\n                       LONDON: WILLIAM HEINEMANN\n\n\n\n\n                     THE INEQUALITY OF HUMAN RACES\n\n\n                          BY ARTHUR DE GOBINEAU\n\n                    TRANSLATED BY ADRIAN COLLINS, M.A.\n\n INTRODUCTION BY DR. OSCAR LEVY, EDITOR OF THE AUTHORISED ENGLISH VERSION\n                           OF NIETZSCHE\u2019S WORKS\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                           WILLIAM HEINEMANN\n                           LONDON      MCMXV\n\n\n\n\n                    _London William Heinemann 1915_\n\n\n\n\n                                CONTENTS\n\n\n CHAP.                                                              PAGE\n\n       INTRODUCTION                                                  vii\n\n       FROM THE AUTHOR\u2019S DEDICATION                                   xi\n\n       AUTHOR\u2019S PREFACE                                               xv\n\n    I. THE MORTAL DISEASE OF CIVILIZATIONS AND SOCIETIES PROCEEDS\n         FROM GENERAL CAUSES COMMON TO THEM ALL                        1\n\n   II. FANATICISM, LUXURY, CORRUPTION OF MORALS, AND IRRELIGION DO\n         NOT NECESSARILY LEAD TO THE FALL OF SOCIETIES                 7\n\n  III. THE RELATIVE MERIT OF GOVERNMENTS HAS NO INFLUENCE ON THE\n         LENGTH OF A NATION\u2019S LIFE                                    19\n\n   IV. THE MEANING OF THE WORD \u201cDEGENERATION\u201d; THE MIXTURE OF\n         RACIAL ELEMENTS; HOW SOCIETIES ARE FORMED AND BROKEN UP      23\n\n    V. RACIAL INEQUALITY IS NOT THE RESULT OF INSTITUTIONS            36\n\n   VI. NATIONS, WHETHER PROGRESSING OR STAGNATING ARE INDEPENDENT\n         OF THE REGIONS IN WHICH THEY LIVE                            54\n\n  VII. CHRISTIANITY NEITHER CREATES NOR CHANGES THE CAPACITY FOR\n         CIVILIZATION                                                 63\n\n VIII. DEFINITION OF THE WORD \u201cCIVILIZATION\u201d; SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT\n         HAS A TWOFOLD ORIGIN                                         77\n\n   IX. DEFINITION OF THE WORD \u201cCIVILIZATION\u201d (_continued_);\n         DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS OF CIVILIZED SOCIETIES; OUR\n         CIVILIZATION IS NOT SUPERIOR TO THOSE WHICH HAVE GONE\n         BEFORE                                                       89\n\n    X. SOME ANTHROPOLOGISTS REGARD MAN AS HAVING A MULTIPLE ORIGIN   106\n\n   XI. RACIAL DIFFERENCES ARE PERMANENT                              117\n\n  XII. HOW THE RACES WERE PHYSIOLOGICALLY SEPARATED, AND THE\n         DIFFERENT VARIETIES FORMED BY THEIR INTER-MIXTURE. THEY\n         ARE UNEQUAL IN STRENGTH AND BEAUTY                          141\n\n XIII. THE HUMAN RACES ARE INTELLECTUALLY UNEQUAL; MANKIND IS NOT\n         CAPABLE OF INFINITE PROGRESS                                154\n\n  XIV. PROOF OF THE INTELLECTUAL INEQUALITY OF RACES (_continued_).\n         DIFFERENT CIVILIZATIONS ARE MUTUALLY REPULSIVE; HYBRID\n         RACES HAVE EQUALLY HYBRID CIVILIZATIONS                     168\n\n   XV. THE DIFFERENT LANGUAGES ARE UNEQUAL, AND CORRESPOND\n         PERFECTLY IN RELATIVE MERIT TO THE RACES THAT USE THEM      182\n\n  XVI. RECAPITULATION; THE RESPECTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE THREE\n         GREAT RACES; THE SUPERIORITY OF THE WHITE TYPE, AND,\n         WITHIN THIS TYPE, OF THE ARYAN FAMILY                       205\n\n\n\n\n         INTRODUCTION TO GOBINEAU\u2019S \u201cINEQUALITY OF HUMAN RACES\u201d\n\n\nThough many people have accused this age of irreligion, there is at\nleast one point of similarity between modern Europe and that\npre-Christian Era to which our present religion is due. Just as in\nancient Palestine, there are living amongst us two kinds of prophets\u2014the\nprophets of evil and disaster, and those of bliss, or, as Europe likes\nto call it, of \u201cprogress.\u201d As in Palestine of old the public usually\nsides with the lighter, the optimistic, the more comfortable sort of\npeople, with the prophets of bliss, while Time and Fate invariably\ndecide in favour of the sterner and gloomier individuals, the prophets\nof evil. In the world to-day as well as in Palestine of old, the\nprophets of bliss are the false prophets; the prophets of evil, to-day\nas of yore, are the true ones. Such a true prophet was Count Arthur de\nGobineau.\n\nEven his friends\u2014those few friends whom he gained at the end of his\nlife\u2014still thought him unduly pessimistic. Old Wagner, who introduced\nhim to the German public, thought of brightening his gloom by a little\nChristian faith, hope, and charity, in order to make the pill more\npalatable to that great public, which he, the great Stage-manager, knew\nso well. Other Germans\u2014Chamberlain, Schemann, and the Gobineau\nschool\u2014poured a great deal of water into his wine, sweetened it with\npatriotic syrups, adulterated it with their own pleasant inventions,\nwhich were all too readily swallowed by a gullible and credulous\ngeneration. But stern old Gobineau knew the world better than his young\nand cheerful offspring. He had seen through all that boisterous gaiety\nof the age, all its breathless labour, all its technical advancement,\nall its materialistic progress, and had diagnosed, behind it that muddle\nof moral values which our forefathers have bequeathed to us and which in\nour generation has only become a greater muddle still. The catastrophe\nwhich Gobineau had prophesied to an Aristocracy which had forgotten its\ntradition, to a Democracy which had no root in reality, to a\nChristianity which he thought entirely inefficient, is now upon us.\n\nUnder the stress of the present misfortunes, we frequently hear that all\nour previous opinions need revision, that we have to forget many things\nand to learn afresh still more, that we must try to build up our\ncivilization on a safer basis, that we must reconsider and reconstruct\nthe values received from former ages. It is therefore our duty, I think,\nto turn back to those prophets who accused our forefathers of being on\nthe road to destruction, all the more so as these prophets were likewise\ntrue poets who tried as such to point out the right road, endeavouring\nto remedy, as far as their insight went, the evil of their time. This is\nthe best, and I trust a perfectly satisfactory, reason for the\ntranslation of \u201cThe Inequality of Human Races.\u201d\n\nThis book, written as early as 1853, is no doubt a youthful and somewhat\nbewildering performance, but it gives us the basis of Gobineau\u2019s creed,\nhis belief in Race and Aristocracy as the first condition of\ncivilization, his disbelief in the influence of environment, his\ndistrust in the efficacy of religion and morality. The latter kind of\nscepticism brings him into relationship with Nietzsche, who has even\naccentuated Count Gobineau\u2019s suspicions and who has branded our morality\nas Slave-Morality, and consequently as harmful to good government. What\na Europe without Masters, but with plenty of Half-masters and Slaves,\nwas driving at, Gobineau foresaw as well as Nietzsche.\n\nI sincerely hope that no intelligent reader will overlook this sceptical\nattitude of Gobineau towards religion, because that is a point of great\nimportance at the present time, when our faith will certainly thrive\nagain on a misfortune, which, by the propagation of slave-values, it\nindirectly has caused. It is this scepticism against the Church and its\nSemitic values, which separates a Gobineau from Disraeli, to whom\notherwise\u2014in his rejection of Buckle, Darwin, and their science, in his\npraise of Race and Aristocracy, and in his prophecy of evil\u2014he is so\nnearly related. Disraeli still believed in a Church based upon a revival\nof the old principles, Gobineau, like Nietzsche, had no hope whatever in\nthis respect. It is the great merit of both Nietzsche and Gobineau, that\nthey were not, like Disraeli, trying to revive a corpse, but that they\nfrankly acknowledged, the one that the corpse was dead, the other that\nit was positively poisoning the air. The occasional bows which Gobineau\nmakes to the Church cannot, I repeat, mislead any serious critics of his\nwork, especially if they likewise consult his later books, about which,\nby the way, I have spoken at greater length elsewhere.[1] Both Spinoza\nand Montaigne had the same laudable habit, and they did not mean it\neither. For the first business of a great freethinker is not to be\nmistaken for a little one; his greatest misfortune is to be \u201cunderstood\u201d\nby the wrong class of people, and thus an occasional bow to the old and\nvenerable Power\u2014apart from the safety which it procures\u2014protects him\nfrom an offensive handshake with enthusiastic and unbalanced disciples\nand apostles.\n\n                                                              OSCAR LEVY\n\nGENEVA, _July 1915_\n\n\n\n\n                 FROM THE AUTHOR\u2019S DEDICATION (1854)[2]\n                TO HIS MAJESTY GEORGE V, KING OF HANOVER\n\n\nThe great events\u2014the bloody wars, the revolutions, and the breaking up\nof laws\u2014which have been rife for so many years in the States of Europe,\nare apt to turn men\u2019s minds to the study of political problems. While\nthe vulgar consider merely immediate results, and heap all their praise\nand blame on the little electric spark that marks the contact with their\nown interests, the more serious thinker will seek to discover the hidden\ncauses of these terrible upheavals. He will descend, lamp in hand, by\nthe obscure paths of philosophy and history; and in the analysis of the\nhuman heart or the careful search among the annals of the past he will\ntry to gain the master-key to the enigma which has so long baffled the\nimagination of man.\n\nLike every one else, I have felt all the prickings of curiosity to which\nour restless modern world gives rise. But when I tried to study, as\ncompletely as I could, the forces underlying this world, I found the\nhorizon of my inquiry growing wider and wider. I had to push further and\nfurther into the past, and, forced by analogy almost in spite of myself,\nto lift my eyes further and further into the future. It seemed that I\nshould aspire to know not merely the immediate causes of the plagues\nthat are supposed to chasten us, but also to trace the more remote\nreasons for those social evils which the most meagre knowledge of\nhistory will show to have prevailed, in exactly the same form, among all\nthe nations that ever lived, as well as those which survive to-day\u2014evils\nthat in all likelihood will exist among nations yet unborn.\n\nFurther, the present age, I thought, offered peculiar facilities for\nsuch an inquiry. While its very restlessness urges us on to a kind of\nhistorical chemistry, it also makes our labours easier. The thick mists,\nthe profound darkness that from time immemorial veiled the beginnings of\ncivilizations different from our own, now lift and dissolve under the\nsun of science. An analytic method of marvellous delicacy has made a\nRome, unknown to Livy, rise before us under the hands of Niebuhr, and\nhas unravelled for us the truths that lay hid among the legendary tales\nof early Greece. In another quarter of the world, the Germanic peoples,\nso long misunderstood, appear to us now as great and majestic as they\nwere thought barbarous by the writers of the Later Empire. Egypt opens\nits subterranean tombs, translates its hieroglyphs, and reveals the age\nof its pyramids. Assyria lays bare its palaces with their endless\ninscriptions, which had till yesterday been buried beneath their own\nruins. The Iran of Zoroaster has held no secrets from the searching eyes\nof Burnouf, and the Vedas of early India take us back to events not far\nfrom the dawn of creation. From all these conquests together, so\nimportant in themselves, we gain a larger and truer understanding of\nHomer, Herodotus, and especially of the first chapters of the Bible,\nthat deep well of truth, whose riches we can only begin to appreciate\nwhen we go down into it with a fully enlightened mind.\n\nThese sudden and unexpected discoveries are naturally not always beyond\nthe reach of criticism. They are far from giving us complete lists of\ndynasties, or an unbroken sequence of reigns and events. In spite,\nhowever, of the fragmentary nature of their results, many of them are\nadmirable for my present purpose, and far more fruitful than the most\naccurate chronological tables would be. I welcome, most of all, the\nrevelation of manners and customs, of the very portraits and costumes,\nof vanished peoples. We know the condition of their art. Their whole\nlife, public and private, physical and moral, is unrolled before us, and\nit becomes possible to reconstruct, with the aid of the most authentic\nmaterials, that which constitutes the personality of races and mainly\ndetermines their value.\n\nWith such a treasury of knowledge, new or newly understood, to draw\nupon, no one can claim any longer to explain the complicated play of\nsocial forces, the causes of the rise and decay of nations, in the light\nof the purely abstract and hypothetical arguments supplied by a\nsceptical philosophy. Since we have now an abundance of positive facts\ncrowding upon us from all sides, rising from every sepulchre, and lying\nready to every seeker\u2019s hand, we may no longer, like the theorists of\nthe Revolution, form a collection of imaginary beings out of clouds, and\namuse ourselves by moving these chimeras about like marionettes, in a\npolitical environment manufactured to suit them. The reality is now too\npressing, too well known; and it forbids games like these, which are\nalways unseasonable, and sometimes impious. There is only one tribunal\ncompetent to decide rationally upon the general characteristics of man,\nand that is history\u2014a severe judge, I confess, and one to whom we may\nwell fear to appeal in an age so wretched as our own.\n\nNot that the past is itself without stain. It includes everything, and\nso may well have many faults, and more than one shameful dereliction of\nduty, to confess. The men of to-day might even be justified in\nflourishing in its face some new merits of their own. But suppose, as an\nanswer to their charges, that the past suddenly called up the gigantic\nshades of the heroic ages, what would they say then? If it reproached\nthem with having compromised the names of religious faith, political\nhonour, and moral duty, what would they answer? If it told them that\nthey are no longer fit for anything but to work out the knowledge of\nwhich the principles had already been recognized and laid down by\nitself; that the virtue of the ancients has become a laughing-stock,\nthat energy has passed from man to steam, that the light of poetry is\nout, that its great prophets are no more, and that what men call their\ninterests are confined to the most pitiful tasks of daily life;\u2014how\ncould they defend themselves?\n\nThey could merely reply that not every beautiful thing is dead which has\nbeen swallowed up in silence; it may be only sleeping. All ages, they\nmight say, have beheld periods of transition, when life grapples with\nsuffering and in the end arises victorious and splendid. Just as Chald\u00e6a\nin its dotage was succeeded by the young and vigorous Persia, tottering\nGreece by virile Rome, and the degenerate rule of Augustulus by the\nkingdoms of the noble Teutonic princes, so the races of modern times\nwill regain their lost youth.\n\nThis was a hope I myself cherished for a brief moment, and I should like\nto have at once flung back in the teeth of History its accusations and\ngloomy forebodings, had I not been suddenly struck with the devastating\nthought, that in my hurry I was putting forward something that was\nabsolutely without proof. I began to look about for proofs, and so, in\nmy sympathy for the living, was more and more driven to plumb to their\ndepths the secrets of the dead.\n\nThen, passing from one induction to another, I was gradually penetrated\nby the conviction that the racial question overshadows all other\nproblems of history, that it holds the key to them all, and that the\ninequality of the races from whose fusion a people is formed is enough\nto explain the whole course of its destiny. Every one must have had some\ninkling of this colossal truth, for every one must have seen how certain\nagglomerations of men have descended on some country, and utterly\ntransformed its way of life; how they have shown themselves able to\nstrike out a new vein of activity where, before their coming, all had\nbeen sunk in torpor. Thus, to take an example, a new era of power was\nopened for Great Britain by the Anglo-Saxon invasion, thanks to a decree\nof Providence, which by sending to this island some of the peoples\ngoverned by the sword of your Majesty\u2019s illustrious ancestors, was to\nbring two branches of the same nation under the sceptre of a single\nhouse\u2014a house that can trace its glorious title to the dim sources of\nthe heroic nation itself.\n\nRecognizing that both strong and weak races exist, I preferred to\nexamine the former, to analyse their qualities, and especially to follow\nthem back to their origins. By this method I convinced myself at last\nthat everything great, noble, and fruitful in the works of man on this\nearth, in science, art, and civilization, derives from a single\nstarting-point, is the development of a single germ and the result of a\nsingle thought; it belongs to one family alone, the different branches\nof which have reigned in all the civilized countries of the universe.\n\n\n\n\n                     THE INEQUALITY OF HUMAN RACES\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I\nTHE MORTAL DISEASE OF CIVILIZATIONS AND SOCIETIES PROCEEDS FROM GENERAL\n                       CAUSES COMMON TO THEM ALL\n\n\nThe fall of civilizations is the most striking, and, at the same time,\nthe most obscure, of all the phenomena of history. It is a calamity that\nstrikes fear into the soul, and yet has always something so mysterious\nand so vast in reserve, that the thinker is never weary of looking at\nit, of studying it, of groping for its secrets. No doubt the birth and\ngrowth of peoples offer a very remarkable subject for the observer; the\nsuccessive development of societies, their gains, their conquests, their\ntriumphs, have something that vividly takes the imagination and holds it\ncaptive. But all these events, however great one may think them, seem to\nbe easy of explanation; one accepts them as the mere outcome of the\nintellectual gifts of man. Once we recognize these gifts, we are not\nastonished at their results; they explain, by the bare fact of their\nexistence, the great stream of being whose source they are. So, on this\nscore, there need be no difficulty or hesitation. But when we see that\nafter a time of strength and glory all human societies come to their\ndecline and fall\u2014all, I say, not this or that; when we see in what awful\nsilence the earth shows us, scattered on its surface, the wrecks of the\ncivilizations that have preceded our own\u2014not merely the famous\ncivilizations, but also many others, of which we know nothing but the\nnames, and some, that lie as skeletons of stone in deep world-old\nforests, and have not left us even this shadow of a memory; when the\nmind returns to our modern States, reflects on their extreme youth, and\nconfesses that they are a growth of yesterday, and that some of them are\nalready toppling to their fall: then at last we recognize, not without a\ncertain philosophic shudder, that the words of the prophets on the\ninstability of mortal things apply with the same rigour to civilizations\nas to peoples, to peoples as to States, to States as to individuals; and\nwe are forced to affirm that every assemblage of men, however ingenious\nthe network of social relations that protects it, acquires on the very\nday of its birth, hidden among the elements of its life, the seed of an\ninevitable death.\n\nBut what is this seed, this principle of death? Is it uniform, as its\nresults are, and do all civilizations perish from the same cause?\n\nAt first sight we are tempted to answer in the negative; for we have\nseen the fall of many empires, Assyria, Egypt, Greece, Rome, amid the\nclash of events that had no likeness one to the other. Yet, if we pierce\nbelow the surface, we soon find that this very necessity of coming to an\nend, that weighs imperiously on all societies without exception,\npresupposes such a general cause, which, though hidden, cannot be\nexplained away. When we start from this fixed principle of natural\ndeath\u2014a principle unaffected by all the cases of violent death,\u2014we see\nthat all civilizations, after they have lasted some time, betray to the\nobserver some little symptoms of uneasiness, which are difficult to\ndefine, but not less difficult to deny; these are of a like nature in\nall times and all places. We may admit one obvious point of difference\nbetween the fall of States and that of civilizations, when we see the\nsame kind of culture sometimes persisting in a country under foreign\nrule and weathering every storm of calamity, at other times being\ndestroyed or changed by the slightest breath of a contrary wind; but we\nare, in the end, more and more driven to the idea that the principle of\ndeath which can be seen at the base of all societies is not only\ninherent in their life, but also uniform and the same for all.\n\nTo the elucidation of this great fact I have devoted the studies of\nwhich I here give the results.\n\nWe moderns are the first to have recognized that every assemblage of\nmen, together with the kind of culture it produces, is doomed to perish.\nFormer ages did not believe this. Among the early Asiatics, the\nreligious consciousness, moved by the spectacle of great political\ncatastrophes, as if by some apparition from another world, attributed\nthem to the anger of heaven smiting a nation for its sins; they were, it\nwas thought, a chastisement meet to bring to repentance the criminals\nyet unpunished. The Jews, misinterpreting the meaning of the Covenant,\nsupposed that their Empire would never come to an end. Rome, at the very\nmoment when she was nearing the precipice, did not doubt that her own\nempire was eternal.[3] But the knowledge of later generations has\nincreased with experience; and just as no one doubts of the mortal state\nof humanity, because all the men who preceded us are dead, so we firmly\nbelieve that the days of peoples are numbered, however great the number\nmay be; for all those who held dominion before us have now fallen out of\nthe race. The wisdom of the ancients yields little that throws light on\nour subject, except one fundamental axiom, the recognition of the finger\nof God in the conduct of this world; to this firm and ultimate principle\nwe must adhere, accepting it in the full sense in which it is understood\nby the Catholic Church. It is certain that no civilization falls to the\nground unless God wills it; and when we apply to the mortal state of all\nsocieties the sacred formula used by the ancient priesthoods to explain\nsome striking catastrophes, which they wrongly considered as isolated\nfacts, we are asserting a truth of the first importance, which should\ngovern the search for all the truths of this world. Add, if you will,\nthat all societies perish because they are sinful\u2014and I will agree with\nyou; this merely sets up a true parallel to the case of individuals,\nfinding in sin the germ of destruction. In this regard, there is no\nobjection to saying that human societies share the fate of their\nmembers; they contract the stain from them, and come to a like end. This\nis to reason merely by the light of nature. But when we have once\nadmitted and pondered these two truths, we shall find no further help, I\nrepeat, in the wisdom of the ancients.\n\nThat wisdom tells us nothing definite as to the ways in which the Divine\nwill moves in order to compass the death of peoples; it is, on the\ncontrary, driven to consider these ways as essentially mysterious. It is\nseized with a pious terror at the sight of ruins, and admits too easily\nthat the fallen peoples could not have been thus shaken, struck down,\nand hurled into the gulf, except by the aid of miracles. I can readily\nbelieve that certain events have had a miraculous element, so far as\nthis is stated by Scripture; but where, as is usually the case, the\nformal testimony of Scripture is wanting, we may legitimately hold the\nancient opinion to be incomplete and unenlightened. We may, in fact,\ntake the opposite view, and recognize that the heavy hand of God is laid\nwithout ceasing on our societies, as the effect of a decision pronounced\nbefore the rise of the first people; and that the blow falls according\nto rule and foreknowledge, by virtue of fixed edicts, inscribed in the\ncode of the universe by the side of other laws which, in their rigid\nseverity, govern organic and inorganic nature alike.\n\nWe may justly reproach the philosophy of the early sacred writers with a\nlack of experience; and so, we may say, they explain a mystery merely by\nenunciating a theological truth which, however certain, is itself\nanother mystery. They have not pushed their inquiries so far as to\nobserve the facts of the natural world. But at least one cannot accuse\nthem of misunderstanding the greatness of the problem and scratching for\nsolutions at the surface of the ground. In fact, they have been content\nto state the question in lofty language; and if they have not solved it,\nor even thrown light upon it, at least they have not made it a breeder\nof errors. This puts them far above the rationalistic schools and all\ntheir works.\n\nThe great minds of Athens and Rome formulated the theory, accepted by\nlater ages, that States, civilizations, and peoples, are destroyed only\nby luxury, effeminacy, misgovernment, fanaticism, and the corruption of\nmorals. These causes, taken singly or together, were declared to be\nresponsible for the fall of human societies; the natural corollary being\nthat in the absence of these causes there can be no solvent whatever.\nThe final conclusion is that societies, more fortunate than men, die\nonly a violent death; and if a nation can be imagined as escaping the\ndestructive forces I have mentioned, there is no reason why it should\nnot last as long as the earth itself. When the ancients invented this\ntheory, they did not see where it was leading them; they regarded it\nmerely as a buttress for their ethical notions, to establish which was,\nas we know, the sole aim of their historical method. In their narrative\nof events, they were so taken up with the idea of bringing out the\nadmirable influence of virtue, and the deplorable effects of vice and\ncrime, that anything which marred the harmony of this excellent moral\npicture had little interest for them, and so was generally forgotten or\nset aside. This method was not only false and petty, but also had very\noften a different result from that intended by its authors; for it\napplied the terms \u201cvirtue\u201d and \u201cvice\u201d in an arbitrary way, as the needs\nof the moment dictated. Yet, to a certain extent, the theory is excused\nby the stern and noble sentiment that lay at the base of it; and if the\ngenius of Plutarch and Tacitus has built mere romances and libels on\nthis foundation, at any rate the libels are generous, and the romances\nsublime.\n\nI wish I could show myself as indulgent to the use that the authors of\nthe eighteenth century have made of the theory. But there is too great a\ndifference between their masters and themselves. The former had even a\nquixotic devotion to the maintenance of the social order; the latter\nwere eager for novelty and furiously bent on destruction. The ancients\nmade their false ideas bear a noble progeny; the moderns have produced\nonly monstrous abortions. Their theory has furnished them with arms\nagainst all principles of government, which they have reproached in turn\nwith tyranny, fanaticism, and corruption. The Voltairean way of\n\u201cpreventing the ruin of society\u201d is to destroy religion, law, industry,\nand commerce, under the pretext that religion is another name for\nfanaticism, law for despotism, industry and commerce for luxury and\ncorruption. Where so many errors reign, I certainly agree that we have\n\u201cbad government.\u201d\n\nI have not the least desire to write a polemic; my object is merely to\nshow how an idea common to Thucydides and the Abb\u00e9 Raynal can produce\nquite opposite results. It makes for conservatism in the one, for an\nanarchic cynicism in the other\u2014and is an error in both. The causes\nusually given for the fall of nations are not necessarily the real\ncauses; and though I willingly admit that they may come to the surface\nin the death-agony of a people, I deny that they have enough power,\nenough destructive energy, to draw on, by themselves, the irremediable\ncatastrophe.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER II\n    FANATICISM, LUXURY, CORRUPTION OF MORALS, AND IRRELIGION DO NOT\n               NECESSARILY LEAD TO THE FALL OF SOCIETIES\n\n\nI must first explain what I understand by a \u201csociety.\u201d I do not mean the\nmore or less extended sphere within which, in some form or other, a\ndistinct sovereignty is exercised. The Athenian democracy is not a\n\u201csociety\u201d in our sense, any more than the Kingdom of Magadha, the empire\nof Pontus, or the Caliphate of Egypt in the time of the Fatimites. They\nare fragments of societies, which, no doubt, change, coalesce, or break\nup according to the natural laws that I am investigating; but their\nexistence or death does not imply the existence or death of a society.\nTheir formation is usually a mere transitory phenomenon, having but a\nlimited or indirect influence on the civilization in which they arise.\nWhat I mean by a \u201csociety\u201d is an assemblage of men moved by similar\nideas and the same instincts; their political unity may be more or less\nimperfect, but their social unity must be complete. Thus Egypt, Assyria,\nGreece, India, and China were, or still are, the theatre where distinct\nand separate societies have played out their own destinies, save when\nthese have been brought for a time into conjunction by political\ntroubles. As I shall speak of the parts only when my argument applies to\nthe whole, I shall use the words \u201cnation\u201d or \u201cpeople\u201d either in the wide\nor the narrow sense, without any room for ambiguity. I return now to my\nmain subject, which is to show that fanaticism, luxury, corruption of\nmorals, and irreligion do not necessarily bring about the ruin of\nnations.\n\nAll these phenomena have been found in a highly developed state, either\nin isolation or together, among peoples which were actually the better\nfor them\u2014or at any rate not the worse.\n\nThe Aztec Empire in America seems to have existed mainly \u201cfor the\ngreater glory\u201d of fanaticism. I cannot imagine anything more fanatical\nthan a society like that of the Aztecs, which rested on a religious\nfoundation, continually watered by the blood of human sacrifice. It has\nbeen denied,[4] perhaps with some truth, that the ancient peoples of\nEurope ever practised ritual murder on victims who were regarded as\ninnocent, with the exception of shipwrecked sailors and prisoners of\nwar. But for the ancient Mexicans one victim was as good as another.\nWith a ferocity recognized by a modern physiologist[5] as characteristic\nof the races of the New World, they massacred their fellow-citizens on\ntheir altars, without pity, without flinching, and without\ndiscrimination. This did not prevent their being a powerful,\nindustrious, and wealthy people, which would certainly for many ages\nhave gone on flourishing, reigning, and throat-cutting, had not the\ngenius of Hernando Cortes and the courage of his companions stepped in\nto put an end to the monstrous existence of such an Empire. Thus\nfanaticism does not cause the fall of States.\n\nLuxury and effeminacy have no better claims than fanaticism. Their\neffects are to be seen only in the upper classes; and though they\nassumed different forms in the ancient world, among the Greeks, the\nPersians, and the Romans, I doubt whether they were ever brought to a\ngreater pitch of refinement than at the present day, in France, Germany,\nEngland, and Russia\u2014especially in the last two. And it is just these\ntwo, England and Russia, that, of all the States of modern Europe, seem\nto be gifted with a peculiar vitality. Again, in the Middle Ages, the\nVenetians, the Genoese, and the Pisans crowded their shops with the\ntreasures of the whole world; they displayed them in their palaces, and\ncarried them over every sea. But they were certainly none the weaker for\nthat. Thus luxury and effeminacy are in no way the necessary causes of\nweakness and ruin.\n\nAgain, the corruption of morals, however terrible a scourge it may be,\nis not always an agent of destruction. If it were, the military power\nand commercial prosperity of a nation would have to vary directly with\nthe purity of its morals; but this is by no means the case. The curious\nidea that the early Romans had all the virtues[6] has now been rightly\ngiven up by most people. We no longer see anything very edifying in the\npatricians of the early Republic, who treated their wives like slaves,\ntheir children like cattle, and their creditors like wild beasts. If\nthere were still any advocates to plead their unrighteous cause by\narguing from an assumed \u201cvariation in the moral standard of different\nages,\u201d it would not be very hard to show how flimsy such an argument is.\nIn all ages the misuse of power has excited equal indignation. If the\nrape of Lucrece did not bring about the expulsion of the kings, if the\ntribunate[7] was not established owing to the attempt of Appius\nClaudius, at any rate the real causes that lay behind these two great\nrevolutions, by cloaking themselves under such pretexts, reveal the\nstate of public morality at the time. No, we cannot account for the\ngreater vigour of all early peoples by alleging their greater virtue.\nFrom the beginning of history, there has been no human society, however\nsmall, that has not contained the germ of every vice. And yet, however\nburdened with this load of depravity, the nations seem to march on very\ncomfortably, and often, in fact, to owe their greatness to their\ndetestable customs. The Spartans enjoyed a long life and the admiration\nof men merely owing to their laws, which were those of a robber-state.\nWas the fall of the Ph\u0153nicians due to the corruption that gnawed their\nvitals and was disseminated by them over the whole world? Not at all; on\nthe contrary, this corruption was the main instrument of their power and\nglory. From the day when they first touched the shores of the Greek\nislands,[8] and went their way, cheating their customers, robbing their\nhosts, abducting women for the slave-market, stealing in one place to\nsell in another\u2014from that day, it is true, their reputation fell not\nunreasonably low; but they did not prosper any the less for that, and\nthey hold a place in history which is quite unaffected by all the\nstories of their greed and treachery.\n\nFar from admitting the superior moral character of early societies, I\nhave no doubt that nations, as they grow older and so draw nearer their\nfall, present a far more satisfactory appearance from the censor\u2019s point\nof view. Customs become less rigid, rough edges become softened, the\npath of life is made easier, the rights existing between man and man\nhave had time to become better defined and understood, and so the\ntheories of social justice have reached, little by little, a higher\ndegree of delicacy. At the time when the Greeks overthrew the Empire of\nDarius, or when the Goths entered Rome, there were probably far more\nhonest men in Athens, Babylon, and the imperial city than in the\nglorious days of Harmodius, Cyrus the Great, and Valerius Publicola.\n\nWe need not go back to those distant epochs, but may judge them by\nourselves. Paris is certainly one of the places on this earth where\ncivilization has touched its highest point, and where the contrast with\nprimitive ages is most marked; and yet you will find a large number of\nreligious and learned people admitting that in no place and time were\nthere so many examples of practical virtue, of sincere piety, of saintly\nlives governed by a fine sense of duty, as are to be met to-day in the\ngreat modern city. The ideals of goodness are as high now as they ever\nwere in the loftiest minds of the seventeenth century; and they have\nlaid aside the bitterness, the strain of sternness and savagery\u2014I was\nalmost saying, of pedantry\u2014that sometimes coloured them in that age. And\nso, as a set-off to the frightful perversities of the modern spirit, we\nfind, in the very temple where that spirit has set up the high altar of\nits power, a striking contrast, which never appeared to former centuries\nin the same consoling light as it has to our own.\n\nI do not even believe that there is a lack of great men in periods of\ncorruption and decadence; and by \u201cgreat men\u201d I mean those most richly\nendowed with energy of character and the masculine virtues. If I look at\nthe list of the Roman Emperors (most of them, by the way, as high above\ntheir subjects in merit as they were in rank) I find names like Trajan,\nAntoninus Pius, Septimius Severus, and Jovian; and below the throne,\neven among the city mob, I see with admiration all the great\ntheologians, the great martyrs, the apostles of the primitive Church, to\nsay nothing of the virtuous Pagans. Strong, brave, and active spirits\nfilled the camps and the Italian towns; and one may doubt whether in the\ntime of Cincinnatus, Rome held, in proportion, so many men of eminence\nin all the walks of practical life. The testimony of the facts is\nconclusive.\n\nThus men of strong character, men of talent and energy, so far from\nbeing unknown to human societies in the time of their decadence and old\nage, are actually to be found in greater abundance than in the days when\nan empire is young. Further, the ordinary level of morality is higher in\nthe later period than in the earlier. It is not generally true to say\nthat in States on the point of death the corruption of morals is any\nmore virulent than in those just born. It is equally doubtful whether\nthis corruption brings about their fall; for some States, far from dying\nof their perversity, have lived and grown fat on it. One may go further,\nand show that moral degradation is not necessarily a mortal disease at\nall; for, as against the other maladies of society, it has the advantage\nof being curable; and the cure is sometimes very rapid.\n\nIn fact, the morals of any particular people are in continual ebb and\nflow throughout its history. To go no further afield than our own\nFrance, we may say that, in the fifth and sixth centuries, the conquered\nrace of the Gallo-Romans were certainly better than their conquerors\nfrom a moral point of view. Taken individually, they were not always\ntheir inferiors even in courage and the military virtues.[9] In the\nfollowing centuries, when the two races had begun to intermingle, they\nseem to have deteriorated; and we have no reason to be very proud of the\npicture that was presented by our dear country about the eighth and\nninth centuries. But in the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth, a great\nchange came over the scene. Society had succeeded in harmonizing its\nmost discordant elements, and the state of morals was reasonably good.\nThe ideas of the time were not favourable to the little casuistries that\nkeep a man from the right path even when he wishes to walk in it. The\nfourteenth and fifteenth centuries were times of terrible conflict and\nperversity. Brigandage reigned supreme. It was a period of decadence in\nthe strictest sense of the word; and the decadence was shown in a\nthousand ways. In view of the debauchery, the tyranny, and the massacres\nof that age, of the complete withering of all the finer feelings in\nevery section of the State\u2014in the nobles who plundered their villeins,\nin the citizens who sold their country to England, in a clergy that was\nfalse to its professions\u2014one might have thought that the whole society\nwas about to crash to the ground and bury its shame deep under its own\nruins.... The crash never came. The society continued to live; it\ndevised remedies, it beat back its foes, it emerged from the dark cloud.\nThe sixteenth century was far more reputable than its predecessor, in\nspite of its orgies of blood, which were a pale reflection of those of\nthe preceding age. St. Bartholomew\u2019s day is not such a shameful memory\nas the massacre of the Armagnacs. Finally, the French people passed from\nthis semi-barbarous twilight into the pure splendour of day, the age of\nF\u00e9nelon, Bossuet, and the Montausier. Thus, up to Louis XIV, our history\nshows a series of rapid changes from good to evil, from evil to good;\nwhile the real vitality of the nation has little to do with its moral\ncondition. I have touched lightly on the larger curves of change; to\ntrace the multitude of lesser changes within these would require many\npages. To speak even of what we have all but seen with our own eyes, is\nit not clear that in every decade since 1787 the standard of morality\nhas varied enormously? I conclude that the corruption of morals is a\nfleeting and unstable phenomenon; it becomes sometimes worse and\nsometimes better, and so cannot be considered as necessarily causing the\nruin of societies.\n\nI must examine here an argument, put forward in our time, which never\nentered people\u2019s heads in the eighteenth century; but as it fits in\nadmirably with the subject of the preceding paragraph, I could not find\na better place in which to speak of it. Many people have come to think\nthat the end of a society is at hand when its religious ideas tend to\nweaken and disappear. They see a kind of connexion between the open\nprofession of the doctrines of Zeno and Epicurus at Athens and Rome,\nwith the consequent abandonment (according to them) of the national\ncults, and the fall of the two republics. They fail to notice that these\nare virtually the only examples that can be given of such a coincidence.\nThe Persian Empire at the time of its fall was wholly under the sway of\nthe Magi. Tyre, Carthage, Jud\u00e6a, the Aztec and Peruvian monarchies were\nstruck down while fanatically clinging to their altars. Thus it cannot\nbe maintained that all the peoples whose existence as a nation is being\ndestroyed are at that moment expiating the sin they committed in\ndeserting the faith of their fathers. Further, even the two examples\nthat go to support the theory seem to prove much more than they really\ndo. I deny absolutely that the ancient cults were ever given up in Rome\nor Athens, until the day when they were supplanted in the hearts of all\nmen by the victorious religion of Christ. In other words, I believe that\nthere has never been a real breach of continuity in the religious\nbeliefs of any nation on this earth. The outward form or inner meaning\nof the creed may have changed; but we shall always find some Gallic\nTeutates making way for the Roman Jupiter, Jupiter for the Christian\nGod, without any interval of unbelief, in exactly the same way as the\ndead give up their inheritance to the living. Hence, as there has never\nbeen a nation of which one could say that it had no faith at all, we\nhave no right to assume that \u201cthe lack of faith causes the destruction\nof States.\u201d\n\nI quite see the grounds on which such a view is based. Its defenders\nwill tell us of \u201cthe notorious fact\u201d that a little before the time of\nPericles at Athens, and about the age of the Scipios at Rome the upper\nclasses became more and more prone, first to reason about their\nreligion, then to doubt it, and finally to give up all faith in it, and\nto take pride in being atheists. Little by little, we shall be told, the\nhabit of atheism spread, until there was no one with any pretensions to\nintellect at all who did not defy one augur to pass another without\nsmiling.\n\nThis opinion has a grain of truth, but is largely false. Say, if you\nwill, that Aspasia, at the end of her little suppers, and L\u00e6lius, in the\ncompany of his friends, made a virtue of mocking at the sacred beliefs\nof their country; no one will contradict you. But they would not have\nbeen allowed to vent their ideas too publicly; and yet they lived at the\ntwo most brilliant periods of Greek and Roman history. The imprudent\nconduct of his mistress all but cost Pericles himself very dear; we\nremember the tears he shed in open court, tears which would not of\nthemselves have secured the acquittal of the fair infidel. Think, too,\nof the official language held by contemporary poets, how Sophocles and\nAristophanes succeeded \u00c6schylus as the stern champions of outraged\ndeity. The whole nation believed in its gods, regarded Socrates as a\nrevolutionary and a criminal, and wished to see Anaxagoras brought to\ntrial and condemned.... What of the later ages? Did the impious theories\nof the philosophers succeed at any time in reaching the masses? Not for\na single day. Scepticism remained a luxury of the fashionable world and\nof that world alone. One may call it useless to speak of the thoughts of\nthe plain citizens, the country folk, and the slaves, who had no\ninfluence in the government, and could not impose their ideas on their\nrulers. They had, however, a very real influence; and the proof is that\nuntil paganism was at its last gasp, their temples and shrines had to be\nkept going, and their acolytes to be paid. The most eminent and\nenlightened men, the most fervent in their unbelief, had not only to\naccept the public honour of wearing the priestly robe, but to undertake\nthe most disagreeable duties of the cult\u2014they who were accustomed to\nturn over, day and night, _manu diurna, manu nocturna_, the pages of\nLucretius. Not only did they go through these rites on ceremonial\noccasions, but they used their scanty hours of leisure, hours snatched\nwith difficulty from the life-and-death game of politics, in composing\ntreatises on augury. I am referring to the great Julius.[10] Well, all\nthe emperors after him had to hold the office of high-priest, even\nConstantine. He, certainly, had far stronger reason than all his\npredecessors for shaking off a yoke so degrading to his honour as a\nChristian prince; yet he was forced by public opinion, that blazed up\nfor the last time before being extinguished for ever, to come to terms\nwith the old national religion. Thus it was not the faith of the plain\ncitizens, the country folk, and the slaves that was of small account; it\nwas the theories of the men of culture that mattered nothing. They\nprotested in vain, in the name of reason and good sense, against the\nabsurdities of paganism; the mass of the people neither would nor could\ngive up one belief before they had been provided with another. They\nproved once more the great truth that it is affirmation, not negation,\nwhich is of service in the business of this world. So strongly did men\nfeel this truth in the third century that there was a religious reaction\namong the higher classes. The reaction was serious and general, and\nlasted till the world definitely passed into the arms of the Church. In\nfact, the supremacy of philosophy reached its highest point under the\nAntonines and began to decline soon after their death. I need not here\ngo deeply into this question, however interesting it may be for the\nhistorian of ideas; it will be enough for me to show that the revolution\ngained ground as the years went on, and to bring out its immediate\ncause.\n\nThe older the Roman world became, the greater was the part played by the\narmy. From the emperor, who invariably came from the ranks, down to the\npettiest officer in his Pr\u00e6torian guard and the prefect of the most\nunimportant district, every official had begun his career on the\nparade-ground, under the vine-staff of the centurion; in other words\nthey had all sprung from the mass of the people, of whose unquenchable\npiety I have already spoken. When they had scaled the heights of office,\nthey found confronting them, to their intense annoyance and dismay, the\nancient aristocracy of the municipalities, the local senators, who took\npleasure in regarding them as upstarts, and would gladly have turned\nthem to ridicule if they had dared. Thus the real masters of the State\nand the once predominant families were at daggers drawn. The commanders\nof the army were believers and fanatics\u2014Maximin, for example, and\nGalerius, and a hundred others. The senators and decurions still found\ntheir chief delight in the literature of the sceptics; but as they\nactually lived at court, that is to say among soldiers, they were forced\nto adopt a way of speaking and an official set of opinions which should\nnot put them to any risk. Gradually an atmosphere of devotion spread\nthrough the Empire; and this led the philosophers themselves, with\nEuhemerus at their head, to invent systems of reconciling the theories\nof the rationalists with the State religion\u2014a movement in which the\nEmperor Julian was the most powerful spirit. There is no reason to give\nmuch praise to this renaissance of pagan piety, for it caused most of\nthe persecutions under which our martyrs have suffered. The masses,\nwhose religious feelings had been wounded by the atheistic sects, had\nbided their time so long as they were ruled by the upper classes. But as\nsoon as the empire had become democratic, and the pride of these classes\nhad been brought low, then the populace determined to have their\nrevenge. They made a mistake, however, in their victims, and cut the\nthroats of the Christians, whom they took for philosophers, and accused\nof impiety. What a difference there was between this and an earlier age!\nThe really sceptical pagan was King Agrippa, who wished to hear St. Paul\nmerely out of curiosity.[11] He listened to him, disputed with him, took\nhim for a madman, but did not dream of punishing him for thinking\ndifferently from himself. Another example is the historian Tacitus, who\nwas full of contempt for the new sectaries, but blamed Nero for his\ncruelty in persecuting them. Agrippa and Tacitus were the real\nunbelievers. Diocletian was a politician ruled by the clamours of his\npeople; Decius and Aurelian were fanatics like their subjects.\n\nEven when the Roman Government had definitely gone over to Christianity,\nwhat a task it was to bring the different peoples into the bosom of the\nChurch! In Greece there was a series of terrible struggles, in the\nUniversities as well as in the small towns and villages. The bishops had\neverywhere such difficulty in ousting the little local divinities that\nvery often the victory was due less to argument and conversion than to\ntime, patience, and diplomacy. The clergy were forced to make use of\npious frauds, and their ingenuity replaced the deities of wood, meadow,\nand fountain, by saints, martyrs, and virgins. Thus the feelings of\nreverence continued without a break; for some time they were directed to\nthe wrong objects, but they at last found the right road.... But what am\nI saying? Can we be so certain that even in France there are not to be\nfound to this day a few places where the tenacity of some odd\nsuperstition still gives trouble to the parish priest? In Catholic\nBrittany, in the eighteenth century, a bishop had a long struggle with a\nvillage-people that clung to the worship of a stone idol. In vain was\nthe gross image thrown into the water; its fanatical admirers always\nfished it out again, and the help of a company of infantry was needed to\nbreak it to pieces. We see from this what a long life paganism had\u2014and\nstill has. I conclude that there is no good reason for holding that Rome\nand Athens were for a single day without religion.\n\nSince then, a nation has never, either in ancient or modern times, given\nup one faith before being duly provided with another, it is impossible\nto claim that the ruin of nations follows from their irreligion.\n\nI have now shown that fanaticism, luxury, and the corruption of morals\nhave not necessarily any power of destruction, and that irreligion has\nno political reality at all; it remains to discuss the influence of bad\ngovernment, which is well worth a chapter to itself.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III\n THE RELATIVE MERIT OF GOVERNMENTS HAS NO INFLUENCE ON THE LENGTH OF A\n                             NATION\u2019S LIFE\n\n\nI know the difficulty of my present task. That I should even venture to\ntouch on it will seem a kind of paradox to many of my readers. People\nare convinced, and rightly convinced, that the good administration of\ngood laws has a direct and powerful influence on the health of a people;\nand this conviction is so strong, that they attribute to such\nadministration the mere fact that a human society goes on living at all.\nHere they are wrong.\n\nThey would be right, of course, if it were true that nations could exist\nonly in a state of well-being; but we know that, like individuals, they\ncan often go on for a long time, carrying within them the seeds of some\nfell disease, which may suddenly break out in a virulent form. If\nnations invariably died of their sufferings, not one would survive the\nfirst years of its growth; for it is precisely in those years that they\nshow the worst administration, the worst laws, and the greatest\ndisorder. But in this respect they are the exact opposite of the human\norganism. The greatest enemy that the latter has to fear, especially in\ninfancy, is a continuous series of illnesses\u2014we know beforehand that\nthere is no resisting these; to a society, however, such a series does\nno harm at all, and history gives us abundant proof that the body\npolitic is always being cured of the longest, the most terrible and\ndevastating attacks of disease, of which the worst forms are\nill-conceived laws and an oppressive or negligent administration.[12]\n\nWe will first try to make clear in what a \u201cbad government\u201d consists.\n\nIt is a malady that seems to take many forms. It would be impossible\neven to enumerate them all, for they are multiplied to infinity by the\ndifferences in the constitutions of peoples, and in the place and time\nof their existence. But if we group these forms under four main\nheadings, there are very few varieties that will not be included.\n\nA government is bad when it is set up by a foreign Power. Athens\nexperienced this kind of government under the Thirty Tyrants; they were\ndriven out, and the national spirit, far from dying under their\noppressive rule, was tempered by it to a greater hardness.\n\nA government is bad when it is based on conquest, pure and simple. In\nthe fourteenth century practically the whole of France passed under the\nyoke of England. It emerged stronger than before, and entered on a\ncareer of great brilliance. China was overrun and conquered by hordes of\nMongols; it managed to expel them beyond its borders, after sapping\ntheir vitality in a most extraordinary way. Since that time China has\nfallen into a new servitude; but although the Manchus have already\nenjoyed more than a century of sovereignty, they are on the eve of\nsuffering the same fate as the Mongols, and have passed through a\nsimilar period of weakness.\n\nA government is especially bad when the principle on which it rests\nbecomes vitiated, and ceases to operate in the healthy and vigorous way\nit did at first. This was the condition of the Spanish monarchy. It was\nbased on the military spirit and the idea of social freedom; towards the\nend of Philip II\u2019s reign it forgot its origin and began to degenerate.\nThere has never been a country where all theories of conduct had become\nmore obsolete, where the executive was more feeble and discredited,\nwhere the organization of the church itself was so open to criticism.\nAgriculture and industry, like everything else, were struck down and all\nbut buried in the morass where the nation was decaying.... But is Spain\ndead? Not at all. The country of which so many despaired has given\nEurope the glorious example of a desperate resistance to the fortune of\nour arms; and at the present moment it is perhaps in Spain, of all the\nmodern States, that the feeling of nationality is most intense.\n\nFinally, a government is bad when, by the very nature of its\ninstitutions, it gives colour to an antagonism between the supreme power\nand the mass of the people, or between different classes of society.\nThus, in the Middle Ages, we see the kings of England and France engaged\nin a struggle with their great vassals, and the peasants flying at the\nthroats of their overlords. In Germany, too, the first effects of the\nnew freedom of thought were the civil wars of the Hussites, the\nAnabaptists, and all the other sectaries. A little before that, Italy\nwas in such distress through the division of the supreme power, and the\nquarrel over the fragments between the Emperor, the Pope, the nobles,\nand the communes, that the masses, not knowing whom to obey, often ended\nby obeying nobody. Did this cause the ruin of the whole society? Not at\nall. Its civilization was never more brilliant, its industry more\nproductive, its influence abroad more incontestable.\n\nI can well believe that sometimes, in the midst of these storms, a wise\nand potent law-giver came, like a sunbeam, to shed the light of his\nbeneficence on the peoples he ruled. The light remained only for a short\nspace; and just as its absence had not caused death, so its presence did\nnot bring life. For this, the times of prosperity would have had to be\nfrequent and of long duration. But upright princes were rare in that\nage, and are rare in all ages. Even the best of them have their\ndetractors, and the happiest pictures are full of shadow. Do all\nhistorians alike regard the time of King William III as an era of\nprosperity for England? Do they all admire Louis XIV, the Great, without\nreserve? On the contrary; the critics are all at their posts, and their\narrows know where to find their mark. And yet these are, on the whole,\nthe best regulated and most fruitful periods in the history of ourselves\nand our neighbours. Good governments are so thinly sown on the soil of\nthe ages, and even when they spring up, are so withered by criticism;\npolitical science, the highest and most intricate of all sciences, is so\nincommensurate with the weakness of man, that we cannot sincerely claim\nthat nations perish from being ill-governed. Thank heaven they have the\npower of soon becoming accustomed to their sufferings, which, in their\nworst forms, are infinitely preferable to anarchy. The most superficial\nstudy of history will be enough to show that however bad may be the\ngovernment that is draining away the life-blood of a people, it is often\nbetter than many of the administrations that have gone before.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IV\nTHE MEANING OF THE WORD \u201cDEGENERATION\u201d; THE MIXTURE OF RACIAL ELEMENTS;\n                 HOW SOCIETIES ARE FORMED AND BROKEN UP\n\n\nHowever little the spirit of the foregoing pages may have been\nunderstood, no one will conclude from them that I attach no importance\nto the maladies of the social organism, and that, for me, bad\ngovernment, fanaticism, and irreligion are mere unmeaning accidents. On\nthe contrary I quite agree with the ordinary view, that it is a\nlamentable thing to see a society being gradually undermined by these\nfell diseases, and that no amount of care and trouble would be wasted if\na remedy could only be found. I merely add that if these poisonous\nblossoms of disunion are not grafted on a stronger principle of\ndestruction, if they are not the consequences of a hidden plague more\nterrible still, we may rest assured that their ravages will not be fatal\nand that after a time of suffering more or less drawn out, the society\nwill emerge from their toils, perhaps with strength and youth renewed.\n\nThe examples I have brought forward seem to me conclusive, though their\nnumber might be indefinitely increased. Through some such reasoning as\nthis the ordinary opinions of men have at last come to contain an\ninstinctive perception of the truth. It is being dimly seen that one\nought not to have given such a preponderant importance to evils which\nwere after all merely derivative, and that the true causes of the life\nand death of peoples should have been sought elsewhere, and been drawn\nfrom a deeper well. Men have begun to look at the inner constitution of\na society, by itself, quite apart from all circumstances of health or\ndisease. They have shown themselves ready to admit that no external\ncause could lay the hand of death on any society, so long as a certain\ndestructive principle, inherent in it from the first, born from its womb\nand nourished on its entrails, had not reached its full maturity; on the\nother hand, so soon as this destructive principle had come into\nexistence, the society was doomed to certain death, even though it had\nthe best of all possible governments\u2014in exactly the same way as a spent\nhorse will fall dead on a concrete road.\n\nA great step in advance was made, I admit, when the question was\nconsidered from this point of view, which was anyhow much more\nphilosophic than the one taken up before. Bichat,[13] as we know, did\nnot seek to discover the great mystery of existence by studying the\nhuman subject from the outside; the key to the riddle, he saw, lay\nwithin. Those who followed the same method, in our own subject, were\ntravelling on the only road that really led to discoveries.\nUnfortunately, this excellent idea of theirs was the result of mere\ninstinct; its logical implications were not carried very far, and it was\nshattered on the first difficulty. \u201cYes,\u201d they cried, \u201cthe cause of\ndestruction lies hidden in the very vitals of the social organism; but\nwhat is this cause?\u201d \u201c_Degeneration_,\u201d was the answer; \u201cnations die when\nthey are composed of elements that have _degenerated_.\u201d The answer was\nexcellent, etymologically and otherwise. It only remained to define the\nmeaning of \u201cnation that has degenerated.\u201d This was the rock on which\nthey foundered; a _degenerate people_ meant, they said, \u201cA people which\nthrough bad government, misuse of wealth, fanaticism, or irreligion, had\nlost the characteristic virtues of its ancestors.\u201d What a fall is there!\nThus a people dies of its endemic diseases because it is degenerate, and\nis degenerate because it dies. This circular argument merely proves that\nthe science of social anatomy is in its infancy. I quite agree that\nsocieties perish because they are degenerate, and for no other reason.\nThis is the evil condition that makes them wholly unable to withstand\nthe shock of the disasters that close in upon them; and when they can no\nlonger endure the blows of adverse fortune, and have no power to raise\ntheir heads when the scourge has passed, then we have the sublime\nspectacle of a nation in agony. If it perish, it is because it has no\nlonger the same vigour as it had of old in battling with the dangers of\nlife; in a word, because it is _degenerate_. I repeat, the term is\nexcellent; but we must explain it a little better, and give it a\ndefinite meaning. How and why is a nation\u2019s vigour lost? How does it\ndegenerate? These are the questions which we must try to answer. Up to\nthe present, men have been content with finding the word, without\nunveiling the reality that lies behind. This further step I shall now\nattempt to take.\n\nThe word _degenerate_, when applied to a people, means (as it ought to\nmean) that the people has no longer the same intrinsic value as it had\nbefore, because it has no longer the same blood in its veins, continual\nadulterations having gradually affected the quality of that blood. In\nother words, though the nation bears the name given by its founders, the\nname no longer connotes the same race; in fact, the man of a decadent\ntime, the _degenerate_ man properly so called, is a different being,\nfrom the racial point of view, from the heroes of the great ages. I\nagree that he still keeps something of their essence; but the more he\ndegenerates the more attenuated does this \u201csomething\u201d become. The\nheterogeneous elements that henceforth prevail in him give him quite a\ndifferent nationality\u2014a very original one, no doubt, but such\noriginality is not to be envied. He is only a very distant kinsman of\nthose he still calls his ancestors. He, and his civilization with him,\nwill certainly die on the day when the primordial race-unit is so broken\nup and swamped by the influx of foreign elements, that its effective\nqualities have no longer a sufficient freedom of action. It will not, of\ncourse, absolutely disappear, but it will in practice be so beaten down\nand enfeebled, that its power will be felt less and less as time goes\non. It is at this point that all the results of degeneration will\nappear, and the process may be considered complete.\n\nIf I manage to prove this proposition, I shall have given a meaning to\nthe word \u201cdegeneration.\u201d By showing how the essential quality of a\nnation gradually alters, I shift the responsibility for its decadence,\nwhich thus becomes, in a way, less shameful, for it weighs no longer on\nthe sons, but on the nephews, then on the cousins, then on collaterals\nmore or less removed. And when I have shown by examples that great\npeoples, at the moment of their death, have only a very small and\ninsignificant share in the blood of the founders, into whose inheritance\nthey come, I shall thereby have explained clearly enough how it is\npossible for civilizations to fall\u2014the reason being that they are no\nlonger in the same hands. At the same time I shall be touching on a\nproblem which is much more dangerous than that which I have tried to\nsolve in the preceding chapters. This problem is: \u201cAre there serious and\nultimate differences of value between human races; and can these\ndifferences be estimated?\u201d\n\nI will begin at once to develop the series of arguments that touch the\nfirst point; they will indirectly settle the second also.\n\nTo put my ideas into a clearer and more easily intelligible form I may\ncompare a nation to a human body, which, according to the physiologists,\nis constantly renewing all its parts; the work of transformation that\ngoes on is incessant, and after a certain number of years the body\nretains hardly any of its former elements. Thus, in the old man, there\nare no traces of the man of middle age, in the adult no traces of the\nyouth, nor in the youth of the child; the personal identity in all these\nstages is kept purely by the succession of inner and outer forms, each\nan imperfect copy of the last. Yet I will admit one difference between a\nnation and a human body; in the former there is no question of the\n\u201cforms\u201d being preserved, for these are destroyed and disappear with\nenormous rapidity. I will take a people, or better, a tribe, at the\nmoment when, yielding to a definite vital instinct, it provides itself\nwith laws and begins to play a part in the world. By the mere fact of\nits wants and powers increasing, it inevitably finds itself in contact\nwith other similar associations, and by war or peaceful measures\nsucceeds in incorporating them with itself.\n\nNot all human families can reach this first step; but it is a step that\nevery tribe must take if it is to rank one day as a nation. Even if a\ncertain number of races, themselves perhaps not very far advanced on the\nladder of civilization, have passed through this stage, we cannot\nproperly regard this as a general rule.\n\nIndeed, the human species seems to have a very great difficulty in\nraising itself above a rudimentary type of organization; the transition\nto a more complex state is made only by those groups of tribes, that are\neminently gifted. I may cite, in support of this, the actual condition\nof a large number of communities spread throughout the world. These\nbackward tribes, especially the Polynesian negroes, the Samoyedes and\nothers in the far north, and the majority of the African races, have\nnever been able to shake themselves free from their impotence; they live\nside by side in complete independence of each other. The stronger\nmassacre the weaker, the weaker try to move as far away as possible from\nthe stronger. This sums up the political ideas of these embryo\nsocieties, which have lived on in their imperfect state, without\npossibility of improvement, as long as the human race itself. It may be\nsaid that these miserable savages are a very small part of the earth\u2019s\npopulation. Granted; but we must take account of all the similar peoples\nwho have lived and disappeared. Their number is incalculable, and\ncertainly includes the vast majority of the pure-blooded yellow and\nblack races.\n\nIf then we are driven to admit that for a very large number of human\nbeings it has been, and always will be, impossible to take even the\nfirst step towards civilization; if, again, we consider that these\npeoples are scattered over the whole face of the earth under the most\nvarying conditions of climate and environment, that they live\nindifferently in the tropics, in the temperate zones, and in the Arctic\ncircle, by sea, lake, and river, in the depths of the forest, in the\ngrassy plains, in the arid deserts, we must conclude that a part of\nmankind, is in its own nature stricken with a paralysis, which makes it\nfor ever unable to take even the first step towards civilization, since\nit cannot overcome the natural repugnance, felt by men and animals\nalike, to a crossing of blood.\n\nLeaving these tribes, that are incapable of civilization, on one side,\nwe come, in our journey upwards, to those which understand that if they\nwish to increase their power and prosperity, they are absolutely\ncompelled, either by war or peaceful measures, to draw their neighbours\nwithin their sphere of influence. War is undoubtedly the simpler way of\ndoing this. Accordingly, they go to war. But when the campaign is\nfinished, and the craving for destruction is satisfied, some prisoners\nare left over; these prisoners become slaves, and as slaves, work for\ntheir masters. We have class distinctions at once, and an industrial\nsystem: the tribe has become a little people. This is a higher rung on\nthe ladder of civilization, and is not necessarily passed by all the\ntribes which have been able to reach it; many remain at this stage in\ncheerful stagnation.\n\nBut there are others, more imaginative and energetic, whose ideas soar\nbeyond mere brigandage. They manage to conquer a great territory, and\nassume rights of ownership not only over the inhabitants, but also over\ntheir land. From this moment a real nation has been formed. The two\nraces often continue for a time to live side by side without mingling;\nand yet, as they become indispensable to each other, as a community of\nwork and interest is gradually built up, as the pride and rancour of\nconquest begin to ebb away, as those below naturally tend to rise to the\nlevel of their masters, while the masters have a thousand reasons for\nallowing, or even for promoting, such a tendency, the mixture of blood\nfinally takes place, the two races cease to be associated with distinct\ntribes, and become more and more fused into a single whole.\n\nThe spirit of isolation is, however, so innate in the human race, that\neven those who have reached this advanced stage of crossing refuse in\nmany cases to take a step further. There are some peoples who are, as we\nknow positively, of mixed origin, but who keep their feeling for the\nclan to an extraordinary degree. The Arabs, for example, do more than\nmerely spring from different branches of the Semitic stock; they belong\nat one and the same time to the so-called families of Shem and Ham, not\nto speak of a vast number of local strains that are intermingled with\nthese. Nevertheless, their attachment to the tribe, as a separate unit,\nis one of the most striking features of their national character and\ntheir political history. In fact, it has been thought possible to\nattribute their expulsion from Spain not only to the actual breaking up\nof their power there, but also, to a large extent, to their being\ncontinually divided into smaller and mutually antagonistic groups, in\nthe struggles for promotion among the Arab families at the petty courts\nof Valentia, Toledo, Cordova, and Grenada.[14]\n\nWe may say the same about the majority of such peoples. Further, where\nthe tribal separation has broken down, a national feeling takes its\nplace, and acts with a similar vigour, which a community of religion is\nnot enough to destroy. This is the case among the Arabs and the Turks,\nthe Persians and the Jews, the Parsees and the Hindus, the Nestorians of\nSyria and the Kurds. We find it also in European Turkey, and can trace\nits course in Hungary, among the Magyars, the Saxons, the Wallachians,\nand the Croats. I know, from what I have seen with my own eyes, that in\ncertain parts of France, the country where races are mingled more than\nperhaps anywhere else, there are little communities to be found to this\nday, who feel a repugnance to marrying outside their own village.\n\nI think I am right in concluding from these examples, which cover all\ncountries and ages, including our own, that the human race in all its\nbranches has a secret repulsion from the crossing of blood, a repulsion\nwhich in many of the branches is invincible, and in others is only\nconquered to a slight extent. Even those who most completely shake off\nthe yoke of this idea cannot get rid of the few last traces of it; yet\nsuch peoples are the only members of our species who can be civilized at\nall.\n\nThus mankind lives in obedience to two laws, one of repulsion, the other\nof attraction; these act with different force on different peoples. The\nfirst is fully respected only by those races which can never raise\nthemselves above the elementary completeness of the tribal life, while\nthe power of the second, on the contrary, is the more absolute, as the\nracial units on which it is exercised are more capable of development.\n\nHere especially I must be concrete. I have just taken the example of a\npeople in embryo, whose state is like that of a single family. I have\ngiven them the qualities which will allow them to pass into the state of\na nation. Well, suppose they have become a nation. History does not tell\nme what the elements were that constituted the original group; all I\nknow is that these elements fitted it for the transformation which I\nhave made it undergo. Now that it has grown, it has only two\npossibilities. One or other of two destinies is inevitable. It will\neither conquer or be conquered.\n\nI will give it the better part, and assume that it will conquer. It will\nat the same time rule, administer, and civilize. It will not go through\nits provinces, sowing a useless harvest of fire and massacre. Monuments,\ncustoms, and institutions will be alike sacred. It will change what it\ncan usefully modify, and replace it by something better. Weakness in its\nhands will become strength. It will behave in such a way that, in the\nwords of Scripture, it will be magnified in the sight of men.\n\nI do not know if the same thought has already struck the reader; but in\nthe picture which I am presenting\u2014and which in certain features is that\nof the Hindus, the Egyptians, the Persians and the Macedonians\u2014two facts\nappear to me to stand out. The first is that a nation, which itself\nlacks vigour and power, is suddenly called upon to share a new and a\nbetter destiny\u2014that of the strong masters into whose hands it has\nfallen; this was the case with the Anglo-Saxons, when they had been\nsubdued by the Normans. The second fact is that a picked race of men, a\nsovereign people, with the usual strong propensities of such a people to\ncross its blood with another\u2019s, finds itself henceforth in close contact\nwith a race whose inferiority is shown, not only by defeat, but also by\nthe lack of the attributes that may be seen in the conquerors. From the\nvery day when the conquest is accomplished and the fusion begins, there\nappears a noticeable change of quality in the blood of the masters. If\nthere were no other modifying influence at work, then\u2014at the end of a\nnumber of years, which would vary according to the number of peoples\nthat composed the original stock\u2014we should be confronted with a new\nrace, less powerful certainly than the better of its two ancestors, but\nstill of considerable strength. It would have developed special\nqualities resulting from the actual mixture, and unknown to the\ncommunities from which it sprang. But the case is not generally so\nsimple as this, and the intermingling of blood is not confined for long\nto the two constituent peoples.\n\nThe empire I have just been imagining is a powerful one, and its power\nis used to control its neighbours. I assume that there will be new\nconquests; and, every time, a current of fresh blood will be mingled\nwith the main stream. Henceforth, as the nation grows, whether by war or\ntreaty, its racial character changes more and more. It is rich,\ncommercial, and civilized. The needs and the pleasures of other peoples\nfind ample satisfaction in its capitals, its great towns, and its ports;\nwhile its myriad attractions cause many foreigners to make it their\nhome. After a short time, we might truly say that a distinction of\ncastes takes the place of the original distinction of races.\n\nI am willing to grant that the people of whom I am speaking is\nstrengthened in its exclusive notions by the most formal commands of\nreligion, and that some dreadful penalty lurks in the background, to awe\nthe disobedient. But since the people is civilized, its character is\nsoft and tolerant, even to the contempt of its faith. Its oracles will\nspeak in vain; there will be births outside the caste-limits. Every day\nnew distinctions will have to be drawn, new classifications invented;\nthe number of social grades will be increased, and it will be almost\nimpossible to know where one is, amid the infinite variety of the\nsubdivisions, that change from province to province, from canton to\ncanton, from village to village. In fact, the condition will be that of\nthe Hindu countries. It is only, however, the Brahman who has shown\nhimself so tenacious of his ideas of separation; the foreign peoples he\ncivilized have never fastened these cramping fetters on their shoulders,\nor any rate have long since shaken them off. In all the States that have\nmade any advance in intellectual culture, the process has not been\nchecked for a single moment by those desperate shifts to which the\nlaw-givers of the Aryavarta were put, in their desire to reconcile the\nprescriptions of the Code of Manu with the irresistible march of events.\nIn every other place where there were really any castes at all, they\nceased to exist at the moment when the chance of making a fortune, and\nof becoming famous by useful discoveries or social talents, became open\nto the whole world, without distinction of origin. But also, from that\nsame day, the nation that was originally the active, conquering, and\ncivilizing power began to disappear; its blood became merged in that of\nall the tributaries which it had attracted to its own stream.\n\nGenerally the dominating peoples begin by being far fewer in number than\nthose they conquer; while, on the other hand, certain races that form\nthe basis of the population in immense districts are extremely\nprolific\u2014the Celts, for example, and the Slavs. This is yet another\nreason for the rapid disappearance of the conquering races. Again, their\ngreater activity and the more personal part they take in the affairs of\nthe State make them the chief mark for attack after a disastrous battle,\na proscription, or a revolution. Thus, while by their very genius for\ncivilization they collect round them the different elements in which\nthey are to be absorbed, they are the victims, first of their original\nsmallness of number, and then of a host of secondary causes which\ncombine together for their destruction.\n\nIt is fairly obvious that the time when the disappearance takes place\nwill vary considerably, according to circumstances. Yet it does finally\ncome to pass, and is everywhere quite complete, long before the end of\nthe civilization which the victorious race is supposed to be animating.\nA people may often go on living and working, and even growing in power,\nafter the active, generating force of its life and glory has ceased to\nexist. Does this contradict what I have said above? Not at all; for\nwhile the blood of the civilizing race is gradually drained away by\nbeing parcelled out among the peoples that are conquered or annexed, the\nimpulse originally given to these peoples still persists. The\ninstitutions which the dead master had invented, the laws he had\nprescribed, the customs he had initiated\u2014all these live after him. No\ndoubt the customs, laws, and institutions have quite forgotten the\nspirit that informed their youth; they survive in dishonoured old age,\nevery day more sapless and rotten. But so long as even their shadows\nremain, the building stands, the body seems to have a soul, the pale\nghost walks. When the original impulse has worked itself out, the last\nword has been said. Nothing remains; the civilization is dead.\n\nI think I now have all the data necessary for grappling with the problem\nof the life and death of nations; and I can say positively that a people\nwill never die, if it remains eternally composed of the same national\nelements. If the empire of Darius had, at the battle of Arbela, been\nable to fill its ranks with Persians, that is to say with real Aryans;\nif the Romans of the later Empire had had a Senate and an army of the\nsame stock as that which existed at the time of the Fabii, their\ndominion would never have come to an end. So long as they kept the same\npurity of blood, the Persians and Romans would have lived and reigned.\nIn the long run, it might be said, a conqueror, more irresistible than\nthey, would have appeared on the scene; and they would have fallen under\na well-directed attack, or a long siege, or simply by the fortune of a\nsingle battle. Yes, a State might be overthrown in this way, but not a\ncivilization or a social organism. Invasion and defeat are but the dark\nclouds that for a time blot out the day, and then pass over. Many\nexamples might be brought forward in proof of this.\n\nIn modern times the Chinese have been twice conquered. They have always\nforced their conquerors to become assimilated to them, and to respect\ntheir customs; they gave much, and took hardly anything in return. They\ndrove out the first invaders, and in time will do the same with the\nsecond.\n\nThe English are the masters of India, and yet their moral hold over\ntheir subjects is almost non-existent. They are themselves influenced in\nmany ways by the local civilization, and cannot succeed in stamping\ntheir ideas on a people that fears its conquerors, but is only\nphysically dominated by them. It keeps its soul erect, and its thoughts\napart from theirs. The Hindu race has become a stranger to the race that\ngoverns it to-day, and its civilization does not obey the law that gives\nthe battle to the strong. External forms, kingdoms, and empires have\nchanged, and will change again; but the foundations on which they rest,\nand from which they spring, do not necessarily change with them. Though\nHyderabad, Lahore, and Delhi are no longer capital cities, Hindu society\nnone the less persists. A moment will come, in one way or another, when\nIndia will again live publicly, as she already does privately, under her\nown laws; and, by the help either of the races actually existing or of a\nhybrid proceeding from them, will assume again, in the full sense of the\nword, a political personality.\n\nThe hazard of war cannot destroy the life of a people. At most, it\nsuspends its animation for a time, and in some ways shears it of its\noutward pomp. So long as the blood and institutions of a nation keep to\na sufficient degree the impress of the original race, that nation\nexists. Whether, as in the case of the Chinese, its conqueror has, in a\npurely material sense, greater energy than itself; whether, like the\nHindu, it is matched, in a long and arduous trial of patience, against a\nnation, such as the English, in all points its superior; in either case\nthe thought of its certain destiny should bring consolation\u2014one day it\nwill be free. But if, like the Greeks, and the Romans of the later\nEmpire, the people has been absolutely drained of its original blood,\nand the qualities conferred by the blood, then the day of its defeat\nwill be the day of its death. It has used up the time that heaven\ngranted at its birth, for it has completely changed its race, and with\nits race its nature. It is therefore degenerate.\n\nIn view of the preceding paragraph, we may regard as settled the vexed\nquestion as to what would have happened if the Carthaginians, instead of\nfalling before the fortunes of Rome, had become masters of Italy.\nInasmuch as they belonged to the Ph\u0153nician stock, a stock inferior in\nthe citizen-virtues to the races that produced the soldiers of Scipio, a\ndifferent issue of the battle of Zama could not have made any change in\ntheir destiny. If they had been lucky on one day, the next would have\nseen their luck recoil on their heads; or they might have been merged in\nthe Italian race by victory, as they were by defeat. In any case the\nfinal result would have been exactly the same. The destiny of\ncivilizations is not a matter of chance; it does not depend on the toss\nof a coin. It is only men who are killed by the sword; and when the most\nredoubtable, warlike, and successful nations have nothing but valour in\ntheir hearts, military science in their heads, and the laurels of\nvictory in their hands, without any thought that rises above mere\nconquest, they always end merely by learning, and learning badly, from\nthose they have conquered, how to live in time of peace. The annals of\nthe Celts and the Nomadic hordes of Asia tell no other tale than this.\n\nI have now given a meaning to the word _degeneration_; and so have been\nable to attack the problem of a nation\u2019s vitality. I must next proceed\nto prove what for the sake of clearness I have had to put forward as a\nmere hypothesis; namely, that there are real differences in the relative\nvalue of human races. The consequences of proving this will be\nconsiderable, and cover a wide field. But first I must lay a foundation\nof fact and argument capable of holding up such a vast building; and the\nfoundation cannot be too complete. The question with which I have just\nbeen dealing was only the gateway of the temple.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER V\n          RACIAL INEQUALITY IS NOT THE RESULT OF INSTITUTIONS\n\n\nThe idea of an original, clear-cut, and permanent inequality among the\ndifferent races is one of the oldest and most widely held opinions in\nthe world. We need not be surprised at this, when we consider the\nisolation of primitive tribes and communities, and how in the early ages\nthey all used to \u201cretire into their shell\u201d; a great number have never\nleft this stage. Except in quite modern times, this idea has been the\nbasis of nearly all theories of government. Every people, great or\nsmall, has begun by making inequality its chief political motto. This is\nthe origin of all systems of caste, of nobility, and of aristocracy, in\nso far as the last is founded on the right of birth. The law of\nprimogeniture, which assumes the pre-eminence of the first born and his\ndescendants, is merely a corollary of the same principle. With it go the\nrepulsion felt for the foreigner and the superiority which every nation\nclaims for itself with regard to its neighbours. As soon as the isolated\ngroups have begun to intermingle and to become one people, they grow\ngreat and civilized, and look at each other in a more favourable light,\nas one finds the other useful. Then, and only then, do we see the\nabsolute principle of the inequality, and hence the mutual hostility, of\nraces questioned and undermined. Finally, when the majority of the\ncitizens have mixed blood flowing in their veins, they erect into a\nuniversal and absolute truth what is only true for themselves, and feel\nit to be their duty to assert that all men are equal. They are also\nmoved by praiseworthy dislike of oppression, a legitimate hatred towards\nthe abuse of power; to all thinking men these cast an ugly shadow on the\nmemory of races which have once been dominant, and which have never\nfailed (for such is the way of the world) to justify to some extent many\nof the charges that have been brought against them. From mere\ndeclamation against tyranny, men go on to deny the natural causes of the\nsuperiority against which they are declaiming. The tyrant\u2019s power is, to\nthem, not only misused, but usurped. They refuse, quite wrongly, to\nadmit that certain qualities are by a fatal necessity the exclusive\ninheritance of such and such a stock. In fact, the more heterogeneous\nthe elements of which a people is composed, the more complacently does\nit assert that the most different powers are, or can be, possessed in\nthe same measure by every fraction of the human race, without exception.\nThis theory is barely applicable to these hybrid philosophers\nthemselves; but they extend it to cover all the generations which were,\nare, and ever shall be on the earth. They end one day by summing up\ntheir views in the words which, like the bag of \u00c6olus, contain so many\nstorms\u2014\u201cAll men are brothers.\u201d[15]\n\nThis is the political axiom. Would you like to hear it in its scientific\nform? \u201cAll men,\u201d say the defenders of human equality, \u201care furnished\nwith similar intellectual powers, of the same nature, of the same value,\nof the same compass.\u201d These are not perhaps their exact words, but they\ncertainly give the right meaning. So the brain of the Huron Indian\ncontains in an undeveloped form an intellect which is absolutely the\nsame as that of the Englishman or the Frenchman! Why then, in the course\nof the ages, has he not invented printing or steam-power? I should be\nquite justified in asking our Huron why, if he is equal to our European\npeoples, his tribe has never produced a C\u00e6sar or a Charlemagne among its\nwarriors, and why his bards and sorcerers have, in some inexplicable\nway, neglected to become Homers and Galens. The difficulty is usually\nmet by the blessed phrase, \u201cthe predominating influence of environment.\u201d\nAccording to this doctrine, an island will not see the same miracles of\ncivilization as a continent, the same people will be different in the\nnorth from what it is in the south, forests will not allow of\ndevelopments which are favoured by open country. What else? the humidity\nof a marsh, I suppose, will produce a civilization which would\ninevitably have been stifled by the dryness of the Sahara! However\ningenious these little hypotheses may be, the testimony of fact is\nagainst them. In spite of wind and rain, cold and heat, sterility and\nfruitfulness, the world has seen barbarism and civilization flourishing\neverywhere, one after the other, on the same soil. The brutish fellah is\ntanned by the same sun as scorched the powerful priest of Memphis; the\nlearned professor of Berlin lectures under the same inclement sky that\nonce beheld the wretched existence of the Finnish savage.\n\nThe curious point is that the theory of equality, which is held by the\nmajority of men and so has permeated our customs and institutions, has\nnot been powerful enough to overthrow the evidence against it; and those\nwho are most convinced of its truth pay homage every day to its\nopposite. No one at any time refuses to admit that there are great\ndifferences between nations, and the ordinary speech of men, with a\nna\u00efve inconsistency, confesses the fact. In this it is merely imitating\nthe practice of other ages which were not less convinced than we are\u2014and\nfor the same reason\u2014of the absolute equality of races.\n\nWhile clinging to the liberal dogma of human brotherhood, every nation\nhas always managed to add to the names of others certain qualifications\nand epithets that suggest their unlikeness from itself. The Roman of\nItaly called the Gr\u00e6co-Roman a _Gr\u00e6culus_, or \u201clittle Greek,\u201d and gave\nhim the monopoly of cowardice and empty chatter. He ridiculed the\nCarthaginian settler, and pretended to be able to pick him out among a\nthousand for his litigious character and his want of faith. The\nAlexandrians were held to be witty, insolent, and seditious. In the\nMiddle Ages, the Anglo-Norman kings accused their French subjects of\nlightness and inconstancy. To-day, every one talks of the \u201cnational\ncharacteristics\u201d of the German, the Spaniard, the Englishman, and the\nRussian. I am not asking whether the judgments are true or not. My sole\npoint is that they exist, and are adopted in ordinary speech. Thus, if\non the one hand human societies are called equal, and on the other we\nfind some of them frivolous, others serious; some avaricious, others\nthriftless; some passionately fond of fighting, others careful of their\nlives and energies;\u2014it stands to reason that these differing nations\nmust have destinies which are also absolutely different, and, in a word,\nunequal. The stronger will play the parts of kings and rulers in the\ntragedy of the world. The weaker will be content with a more humble\nposition.\n\nI do not think that the usual idea of a national character for each\npeople has yet been reconciled with the belief, which is just as widely\nheld, that all peoples are equal. Yet the contradiction is striking and\nflagrant, and all the more serious because the most ardent democrats are\nthe first to claim superiority for the Anglo-Saxons of North America\nover all the nations of the same continent. It is true that they ascribe\nthe high position of their favourites merely to their political\nconstitution. But, so far as I know, they do not deny that the\ncountrymen of Penn and Washington, are, as a nation, peculiarly prone to\nset up liberal institutions in all their places of settlement, and, what\nis more, to keep them going. Is not this very tenacity a wonderful\ncharacteristic of this branch of the human race, and the more precious\nbecause most of the societies which have existed, or still exist, in the\nworld seem to be without it?\n\nI do not flatter myself that I shall be able to enjoy this inconsistency\nwithout opposition. The friends of equality will no doubt talk very\nloudly, at this point, about \u201cthe power of customs and institutions.\u201d\nThey will tell me once more how powerfully the health and growth of a\nnation are influenced by \u201cthe essential quality of a government, taken\nby itself,\u201d or \u201cthe fact of despotism or liberty.\u201d But it is just at\nthis point that I too shall oppose their arguments.\n\nPolitical institutions have only two possible sources. They either come\ndirectly from the nation which has to live under them, or they are\ninvented by a powerful people and imposed on all the States that fall\nwithin its sphere of influence.\n\nThere is no difficulty in the first hypothesis. A people obviously\nadapts its institutions to its wants and instincts; and will beware of\nlaying down any rule which may thwart the one or the other. If, by some\nlack of skill or care, such a rule is laid down, the consequent feeling\nof discomfort leads the people to amend its laws, and put them into more\nperfect harmony with their express objects. In every autonomous State,\nthe laws, we may say, always emanate from the people; not generally\nbecause it has a direct power of making them, but because, in order to\nbe good laws, they must be based upon the people\u2019s point of view, and be\nsuch as it might have thought out for itself, if it had been better\ninformed. If some wise law-giver seems, at first sight, the sole source\nof some piece of legislation, a nearer view will show that his very\nwisdom has led him merely to give out the oracles that have been\ndictated by his nation. If he is a judicious man, like Lycurgus, he will\nprescribe nothing that the Dorian of Sparta could not accept. If he is a\nmere doctrinaire, like Draco, he will draw up a code that will soon be\namended or repealed by the Ionian of Athens, who, like all the children\nof Adam, is incapable of living for long under laws that are foreign to\nthe natural tendencies of his real self. The entrance of a man of genius\ninto this great business of law-making is merely a special manifestation\nof the enlightened will of the people; if the laws simply fulfilled the\nfantastic dreams of one individual, they could not rule any people for\nlong. We cannot admit that the institutions thus invented and moulded by\na race of men make that race what it is. They are effects, not causes.\nTheir influence is, of course, very great; they preserve the special\ngenius of the nation, they mark out the road on which it is to travel,\nthe end at which it must aim. To a certain extent, they are the hothouse\nwhere its instincts develop, the armoury that furnishes its best weapons\nfor action. But they do not create their creator; and though they may be\na powerful element in his success by helping on the growth of his innate\nqualities, they will fail miserably whenever they attempt to alter\nthese, or to extend them beyond their natural limits. In a word, they\ncannot achieve the impossible.\n\nIll-fitting institutions, however, together with their consequences,\nhave played a great part in the world. When Charles I, by the evil\ncounsels of the Earl of Strafford, wished to force absolute monarchy on\nthe English, the King and his minister were walking on the blood-stained\nmorass of political theory. When the Calvinists dreamed of bringing the\nFrench under a government that was at once aristocratic and republican,\nthey were just as far away from the right road.\n\nWhen the Regent[16] tried to join hands with the nobles who were\nconquered in 1652, and to carry on the government by intrigue, as the\nco-adjutor and his friends had desired,[17] her efforts pleased nobody,\nand offended equally the nobility, the clergy, the Parliament, and the\nThird Estate. Only a few tax-farmers were pleased. But when Ferdinand\nthe Catholic promulgated against the Moors of Spain his terrible, though\nnecessary, measures of destruction; when Napoleon re-established\nreligion in France, flattered the military spirit, and organized his\npower in such a way as to protect his subjects while coercing them, both\nthese sovereigns, having studied and understood the special character of\ntheir people, were building their house upon a rock. In fact, bad\ninstitutions are those which, however well they look on paper, are not\nin harmony with the national qualities or caprices, and so do not suit a\nparticular State, though they might be very successful in the\nneighbouring country. They would bring only anarchy and disorder, even\nif they were taken from the statute-book of the angels. On the contrary,\nother institutions are good for the opposite reason, though they might\nbe condemned, from a particular point of view or even absolutely, by the\npolitical philosopher or the moralist. The Spartans were small in\nnumber, of high courage, ambitious, and violent. Ill-fitting laws might\nhave turned them into a mere set of pettifogging knaves; Lycurgus made\nthem a nation of heroic brigands.\n\nThere is no doubt about it. As the people is born before the laws, the\nlaws take after the people; and receive from it the stamp which they are\nafterwards to impress in their turn. The changes made in institutions by\nthe lapse of time are a great proof of what I say.\n\nI have already mentioned that as nations become greater, more powerful,\nand more civilized, their blood loses its purity and their instincts are\ngradually altered. As a result, it becomes impossible for them to live\nhappily under the laws that suited their ancestors. New generations have\nnew customs and tendencies, and profound changes in the institutions are\nnot slow to follow. These are more frequent and far-reaching in\nproportion as the race itself is changed; while they are rarer, and more\ngradual, so long as the people is more nearly akin to the first founders\nof the State. In England, where modifications of the stock have been\nslower and, up to now, less varied than in any other European country,\nwe still see the institutions of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries\nforming the base of the social structure. We find there, almost in its\nfirst vigour, the communal organization of the Plantagenets and the\nTudors, the same method of giving the nobility a share in the\ngovernment, the same gradations of rank in this nobility, the same\nrespect for old families tempered with the same love of low-born merit.\nSince James I, however, and especially since the Union under Queen Anne,\nthe English blood has been more and more prone to mingle with that of\nthe Scotch and Irish, while other nations have also helped, by\nimperceptible degrees, to modify its purity. The result is that\ninnovations have been more frequent in our time than ever before, though\nthey have always remained fairly faithful to the spirit of the original\nconstitution.\n\nIn France, intermixture of race has been far more common and varied. In\nsome cases, by a sudden turn of the wheel, power has even passed from\none race to another. Further, on the social side, there have been\ncomplete changes rather than modifications, and these were more or less\nfar-reaching, as the groups that successively held the chief power were\nmore or less different. While the north of France was the preponderating\nelement in national politics, feudalism\u2014or rather a degenerate parody of\nfeudalism\u2014maintained itself with fair success; and the municipal spirit\nfollowed its fortunes. After the expulsion of the English, in the\nfifteenth century, and the restoration of national independence under\nCharles VII, the central provinces, which had taken the chief part in\nthis revolution and were far less Germanic in race than the districts\nbeyond the Loire, naturally saw their Gallo-Roman blood predominant in\nthe camp and the council-chamber. They combined the taste for military\nlife and foreign conquest\u2014the heritage of the Celtic race\u2014with the love\nof authority that was innate in their Roman blood; and they turned the\ncurrent of national feeling in this direction. During the sixteenth\ncentury they largely prepared the ground on which, in 1599, the\nAquitanian supporters of Henry IV, less Celtic though still more Roman\nthan themselves, laid the foundation stone of another and greater\nedifice of absolute power. When Paris, whose population is certainly a\nmuseum of the most varied ethnological specimens, had finally gained\ndominion over the rest of France owing to the centralizing policy\nfavoured by the Southern character, it had no longer any reason to love,\nrespect, or understand any particular tendency or tradition. This great\ncapital, this Tower of Babel, broke with the past\u2014the past of Flanders,\nPoitou, and Languedoc\u2014and dragged the whole of France into ceaseless\nexperiments with doctrines that were quite out of harmony with its\nancient customs.\n\nWe cannot therefore admit that institutions make peoples what they are\nin cases where the peoples themselves have invented the institutions.\nBut may we say the same of the second hypothesis, which deals with cases\nwhere a nation receives its code from the hands of foreigners powerful\nenough to enforce their will, whether the people like it or not?\n\nThere are a few cases of such attempts; but I confess I cannot find any\nwhich have been carried out on a great scale by governments of real\npolitical genius in ancient or modern times. Their wisdom has never been\nused to change the actual foundations of any great national system. The\nRomans were too clever to try such dangerous experiments. Alexander the\nGreat had never done so; and the successors of Augustus, like the\nconqueror of Darius, were content to rule over a vast mosaic of nations,\nall of which clung to their own customs, habits, laws, and methods of\ngovernment. So long as they and their fellow-subjects remained racially\nthe same, they were controlled by their rulers only in matters of\ntaxation and military defence.\n\nThere is, however, one point that must not be passed over. Many of the\npeoples subdued by the Romans had certain features in their codes so\noutrageous that their existence could not be tolerated by Roman\nsentiment; for example, the human sacrifices of the Druids, which were\nvisited with the severest penalties. Well, the Romans, for all their\npower, never succeeded in completely stamping out these barbarous rites.\nIn Narbonese Gaul the victory was easy, as the native population had\nbeen almost entirely replaced by Roman colonists. But in the centre,\nwhere the tribes were wilder, the resistance was more obstinate; and in\nthe Breton Peninsula, where settlers from England in the fourth century\nbrought back the ancient customs with the ancient blood, the people\ncontinued, from mere feelings of patriotism and love of tradition, to\ncut men\u2019s throats on their altars as often as they dared. The strictest\nsupervision did not succeed in taking the sacred knife and torch out of\ntheir hands. Every revolt began by restoring this terrible feature of\nthe national cult; and Christianity, still panting with rage after its\nvictory over an immoral polytheism, hurled itself with shuddering horror\nagainst the still more hideous superstitions of the Armorici. It\ndestroyed them only after a long struggle; for as late as the\nseventeenth century shipwrecked sailors were massacred and wrecks\nplundered in all the parishes on the seaboard where the Cymric blood had\nkept its purity. These barbarous customs were in accordance with the\nirresistible instincts of a race which had not yet become sufficiently\nmixed, and so had seen no reason to change its ways.\n\nIt is, however, in modern times especially that we find examples of\ninstitutions imposed by a conqueror and not accepted by his subjects.\nIntolerance is one of the chief notes of European civilization.\nConscious of its own power and greatness, it finds itself confronted\neither by different civilizations or by peoples in a state of barbarism.\nIt treats both kinds with equal contempt; and as it sees obstacles to\nits own progress in everything that is different from itself, it is apt\nto demand a complete change in its subjects\u2019 point of view. The\nSpaniards, however, the English, the Dutch, and even the French, did not\nventure to push their innovating tendencies too far, when the conquered\npeoples were at all considerable in number. In this they copied the\nmoderation that was forced on the conquerors of antiquity. The East, and\nNorth and West Africa, show clear proof that the most enlightened\nnations cannot set up institutions unsuited to the character of their\nsubjects. I have already mentioned that British India lives its ancient\nlife, under its own immemorial laws. The Javanese have lost all\npolitical independence, but are very far from accepting any institutions\nlike those of the Netherlands. They continue to live bound as they lived\nfree; and since the sixteenth century, when Europe first turned her face\ntowards the East, we cannot find the least trace of any moral influence\nexerted by her, even in the case of the peoples she has most completely\nconquered.\n\nNot all these, however, have been so numerous as to force self-control\non their European masters. In some cases the persuasive tongue has been\nbacked by the stern argument of the sword. The order has gone forth to\nabolish existing customs, and put in their place others which the\nmasters knew to be good and useful. Has the attempt ever succeeded?\n\nAmerica provides us with the richest field for gathering answers to this\nquestion. In the South, the Spaniards reigned without check, and to what\nend? They uprooted the ancient empires, but brought no light. They\nfounded no race like themselves.\n\nIn the North the methods were different, but the results just as\nnegative. In fact, they have been still more unfruitful, still more\ndisastrous from the point of view of humanity. The Spanish Indians, are,\nat any rate, extremely prolific,[18] and have even transformed the blood\nof their conquerors, who have now dropped to their level. But the\nRedskins of the United States have withered at the touch of the\nAnglo-Saxon energy. The few who remain are growing less every day; and\nthose few are as uncivilized, and as incapable of civilization, as their\nforefathers.\n\nIn Oceania, the facts point to the same conclusions; the natives are\ndying out everywhere. We sometimes manage to take away their arms, and\nprevent them from doing harm; but we do not change their nature.\nWherever the European rules, they drink brandy instead of eating each\nother. This is the only new custom which our active minds have been\nquite successful in imposing; it does not mark a great step in advance.\n\nThere are in the world two Governments formed on European models by\npeoples different from us in race; one in the Sandwich Islands, the\nother at San Domingo. A short sketch of these two Governments will be\nenough to show the impotence of all attempts to set up institutions\nwhich are not suggested by the national character.\n\nIn the Sandwich Islands the representative system is to be seen in all\nits majesty. There is a House of Lords, a House of Commons, an executive\nMinistry, a reigning King; nothing is wanting. But all this is mere\nornament. The real motive power that keeps the machine going is a body\nof Protestant missionaries. Without them, King, Lords, and Commons would\nnot know which way to turn, and would soon cease to turn at all. To the\nmissionaries alone belongs the credit of furnishing the ideas, of\nputting them into a palatable form, and imposing them on the people;\nthey do this either by the influence they exert on their neophytes, or,\nin the last resort, by threats. Even so, I rather think that if the\nmissionaries had nothing but King and Parliament to work with, they\nmight struggle for a time with the stupidity of their scholars, but\nwould be forced in the end to take themselves a large and prominent part\nin the management of affairs. This would show their hand too obviously;\nand so they avoid it by appointing a ministry that consists simply of\nmen of European race. The whole business is thus a matter of agreement\nbetween the Protestant mission and its nominees; the rest is merely for\nshow.\n\nAs to the King, Kamehameha III, he appears to be a prince of\nconsiderable parts. He has given up tattooing his face, and although he\nhas not yet converted all the courtiers to his views, he already\nexperiences the well-earned satisfaction of seeing nothing on their\nfaces and cheeks but chaste designs, traced in thin outline. The bulk of\nthe nation, the landed nobility and the townspeople, cling, in this and\nother respects, to their old ideas. The European population of the\nSandwich Islands is, however, swollen every day by new arrivals. There\nare many reasons for this. The short distance separating the Hawaiian\nKingdom from California makes it a very interesting focus for the\nclear-sighted energy of the white race. Deserters from the whaling\nvessels or mutinous sailors are not the only colonists; merchants,\nspeculators, adventurers of all kinds, flock to the islands, build\nhouses, and settle down. The native race is gradually tending to mix\nwith the invaders and disappear. I am not sure that the present\nrepresentative and independent system of administration will not soon\ngive place to an ordinary government of delegates, controlled by some\ngreat power. But of this I am certain, that the institutions that are\nbrought in will end by establishing themselves firmly, and the first day\nof their triumph will necessarily be the last for the natives.\n\nAt San Domingo the independence is complete. There are no missionaries\nto exert a veiled and absolute power, no foreign ministry to carry out\nEuropean ideas; everything is left to the inspiration of the people\nitself. Its Spanish part consists of mulattoes, of whom I need say\nnothing. They seem to imitate, well or badly, all that is most easily\ngrasped in our civilization. They tend, like all hybrids, to identify\nthemselves with the more creditable of the races to which they belong.\nThus they are capable, to a certain extent, of reproducing our customs.\nIt is not among them that we must study the question in its essence. Let\nus cross the mountains that separate the Republic of San Domingo from\nthe State of Hayti.\n\nWe find a society of which the institutions are not only parallel to our\nown, but are derived from the latest pronouncements of our political\nwisdom. All that the most enlightened liberalism has proclaimed for the\nlast sixty years in the deliberative assemblies of Europe, all that has\nbeen written by the most enthusiastic champions of man\u2019s dignity and\nindependence, all the declarations of rights and principles\u2014these have\nall found their echo on the banks of the Artibonite. Nothing African has\nremained in the statute law. All memories of the land of Ham have been\nofficially expunged from men\u2019s minds. The State language has never shown\na trace of African influence. The institutions, as I said before, are\ncompletely European. Let us consider how they harmonize with the manners\nof the people.\n\nWe are in a different world at once. The manners are as depraved,\nbrutal, and savage as in Dahomey or among the Fellatahs.[19] There is\nthe same barbaric love of finery coupled with the same indifference to\nform. Beauty consists in colour, and so long as a garment is of flaming\nred and edged with tinsel, the owner does not trouble about its being\nlargely in holes. The question of cleanliness never enters anyone\u2019s\nhead. If you wish to approach a high official in this country, you find\nyourself being introduced to a gigantic negro lying on his back, on a\nwooden bench. His head is enveloped in a torn and dirty handkerchief,\nsurmounted by a cocked hat, all over gold lace. An immense sword hangs\nfrom his shapeless body. His embroidered coat lacks the final perfection\nof a waistcoat. Our general\u2019s feet are cased in carpet slippers. Do you\nwish to question him, to penetrate his mind, and learn the nature of the\nideas he is revolving there? You will find him as uncultured as a\nsavage, and his bestial self-satisfaction is only equalled by his\nprofound and incurable laziness. If he deigns to open his mouth, he will\nroll you out all the commonplaces which the newspapers have been\ninflicting on us for the last half-century. The barbarian knows them all\nby heart. He has other interests, of course, and very different\ninterests; but no other ideas. He speaks like Baron Holbach, argues like\nMonsieur de Grimm, and has ultimately no serious preoccupation except\nchewing tobacco, drinking alcohol, disembowelling his enemies, and\nconciliating his sorcerers. The rest of the time he sleeps.\n\nThe State is divided among two factions. These are separated from each\nother by a certain incompatibility, not of political theory, but of\nskin. The mulattoes are on one side, the negroes on the other. The\nformer have certainly more intelligence and are more open to ideas. As I\nhave already remarked in the case of San Domingo, the European blood has\nmodified the African character. If these men were set in the midst of a\nlarge white population, and so had good models constantly before their\neyes, they might become quite useful citizens. Unfortunately the negroes\nare for the time being superior in strength and numbers. Although their\nracial memory of Africa has its origin, in many cases, as far back as\ntheir grandfathers, they are still completely under the sway of African\nideals. Their greatest pleasure is idleness; their most cogent argument\nis murder. The most intense hatred has always existed between the two\nparties in the island. The history of Hayti, of democratic Hayti, is\nmerely a long series of massacres; massacres of mulattoes by negroes, or\nof negroes by mulattoes, according as the one or the other held the\nreins of power. The constitution, however enlightened it may pretend to\nbe, has no influence whatever. It sleeps harmlessly upon the paper on\nwhich it is written. The power that reigns unchecked is the true spirit\nof these peoples. According to the natural law already mentioned, the\nblack race, belonging as it does to a branch of the human family that is\nincapable of civilization, cherishes the deepest feelings of repulsion\ntowards all the others. Thus we see the negroes of Hayti violently\ndriving out the whites and forbidding them to enter their territory.\nThey would like to exclude even the mulattoes; and they aim at their\nextermination. Hatred of the foreigner is the mainspring of local\npolitics. Owing, further, to the innate laziness of the race,\nagriculture is abolished, industry is not even mentioned, commerce\nbecomes less every day. The hideous increase of misery prevents the\ngrowth of population, which is actually being diminished by the\ncontinual wars, revolts, and military executions. The inevitable result\nis not far off. A country of which the fertility and natural resources\nused to enrich generation after generation of planters will become a\ndesert; and the wild goat will roam alone over the fruitful plains, the\nmagnificent valleys, the sublime mountains, of the Queen of the\nAntilles.[20]\n\nLet us suppose for a moment that the peoples of this unhappy island\ncould manage to live in accordance with the spirit of their several\nraces. In such a case they would not be influenced, and so (of course)\novershadowed by foreign theories, but would found their society in free\nobedience to their own instincts. A separation between the two colours\nwould take place, more or less spontaneously, though certainly not\nwithout some acts of violence.\n\nThe mulattoes would settle on the seaboard, in order to keep continually\nin touch with Europeans. This is their chief wish. Under European\ndirection they would become merchants (and especially money-brokers),\nlawyers, and physicians. They would tighten the links with the higher\nelements of their race by a continual crossing of blood; they would be\ngradually improved and lose their African character in the same\nproportion as their African blood.\n\nThe negroes would withdraw to the interior and form small societies like\nthose of the runaway slaves in San Domingo itself, in Martinique,\nJamaica, and especially in Cuba, where the size of the country and the\ndepth of the forests baffle all pursuit. Amid the varied and tropical\nvegetation of the Antilles, the American negro would find the\nnecessities of life yielded him in abundance and without labour by the\nfruitful earth. He would return quite freely to the despotic,\npatriarchal system that is naturally suited to those of his brethren on\nwhom the conquering Mussulmans of Africa have not yet laid their yoke.\nThe love of isolation would be at once the cause and the result of his\ninstitutions. Tribes would be formed, and become, at the end of a short\ntime, foreign and hostile to each other. Local wars would constitute the\nsole political history of the different cantons; and the island, though\nit would be wild, thinly peopled, and ill-cultivated, would yet maintain\na double population. This is now condemned to disappear, owing to the\nfatal influence wielded by laws and institutions that have no relation\nto the mind of the negro, his interests, and his wants.\n\nThe examples of San Domingo and the Sandwich Islands are conclusive. But\nI cannot leave this part of my subject without touching on a similar\ninstance, of a peculiar character, which strongly supports my view. I\ncited first a State where the institutions, imposed by Protestant\npreachers, are a mere childish copy of the British system. I then spoke\nof a government, materially free, but spiritually bound by European\ntheories; which it tries to carry out, with fatal consequences for the\nunhappy population. I will now bring forward an instance of quite a\ndifferent kind; I mean the attempt of the Jesuits to civilize the\nnatives of Paraguay.[21]\n\nThese missionaries have been universally praised for their fine courage\nand lofty intelligence. The bitterest enemies of the Order have not been\nable to withhold a warm tribute of admiration for them. If any\ninstitutions imposed on a nation from without ever had a chance of\nsuccess, it was certainly those of the Jesuits, based as they were on a\npowerful religious sentiment, and supported by all the links of\nassociation that could be devised by an exact and subtle knowledge of\nhuman nature. The Fathers were persuaded, as so many others have been,\nthat barbarism occupies the same place in the life of peoples as infancy\ndoes in the life of a man; and that the more rudeness and savagery a\nnation shows, the younger it really is.\n\nIn order, then, to bring their neophytes to the adult stage, they\ntreated them like children, and gave them a despotic government, which\nwas as unyielding in its real aims, as it was mild and gracious in its\noutward appearance. The savage tribes of America have, as a rule,\ndemocratic tendencies; monarchy and aristocracy are rarely seen among\nthem, and then only in a very limited form. The natural character of the\nGuaranis, among whom the Jesuits came, did not differ in this respect\nfrom that of the other tribes. Happily, however, their intelligence was\nrelatively higher, and their ferocity perhaps a little less, than was\nthe case with most of their neighbours; they had, too, in some degree,\nthe power of conceiving new needs. About a hundred and twenty thousand\nsouls were collected together in the mission villages, under the control\nof the Fathers. All that experience, unremitting study, and the living\nspirit of charity had taught the Jesuits, was now drawn upon; they made\nuntiring efforts to secure a quick, though lasting, success. In spite of\nall their care, they found that their absolute power was not sufficient\nto keep their scholars on the right road, and they had frequent proofs\nof the want of solidity in the whole structure.\n\nThe proof was complete, when in an evil hour the edict of the Count of\nAranda ended the reign of piety and intelligence in Paraguay. The\nGuaranis, deprived of their spiritual guides, refused to trust the\nlaymen set over them by the Crown of Spain. They showed no attachment to\ntheir new institutions. They felt once more the call of the savage life,\nand to-day, with the exception of thirty-seven straggling little\nvillages on the banks of the Parana, the Paraguay, and the\nUruguay\u2014villages in which the population is, no doubt, partly hybrid\u2014the\nrest of the tribes have returned to the woods, and live there in just as\nwild a state as the western tribes of the same stock, Guaranis and\nCirionos. I do not say that they keep all the old customs in their\noriginal form, but at any rate their present ones show an attempt to\nrevive the ancient practices, and are directly descended from them; for\nno human race can be unfaithful to its instincts, and leave the path\nthat has been marked out for it by God. We may believe that if the\nJesuits had continued to direct their missions in Paraguay, their\nefforts would, in the course of time, have had better results. I admit\nit; but, in accordance with our universal law, this could only have\nhappened on one condition\u2014that a series of European settlements should\nhave been gradually made in the country under the protection of the\nJesuits. These settlers would have mingled with the natives, have first\nmodified and then completely changed their blood. A State would have\narisen, bearing perhaps a native name and boasting that it had sprung\nfrom the soil; but it would actually have been as European as its own\ninstitutions.\n\nThis is the end of my argument as to the relation between institutions\nand races.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER VI\n   NATIONS, WHETHER PROGRESSING OR STAGNATING, ARE INDEPENDENT OF THE\n                       REGIONS IN WHICH THEY LIVE\n\n\nI must now consider whether the development of peoples is affected (as\nmany writers have asserted) by climate, soil, or geographical situation.\nAnd although I have briefly touched on this point in speaking of\nenvironment,[22] I should be leaving a real gap in my theory if I did\nnot discuss it more thoroughly.\n\nSuppose that a nation lives in a temperate climate, which is not hot\nenough to sap its energies, or cold enough to make the soil\nunproductive; that its territory contains large rivers, wide roads\nsuitable for traffic, plains and valleys capable of varied cultivation,\nand mountains filled with rich veins of ore\u2014we are usually led to\nbelieve that a nation so favoured by nature will be quick to leave the\nstage of barbarism, and will pass, with no difficulty, to that of\ncivilization.[23] We are just as ready to admit, as a corollary, that\nthe tribes which are burnt by the sun or numbed by the eternal ice will\nbe much more liable to remain in a savage state, living as they do on\nnothing but barren rocks. It goes without saying, that on this\nhypothesis, mankind is capable of perfection only by the help of\nmaterial nature, and that its value and greatness exist potentially\noutside itself. This view may seem attractive at first sight, but it has\nno support whatever from the facts of observation.\n\nNowhere is the soil more fertile, the climate milder, than in certain\nparts of America. There is an abundance of great rivers. The gulfs, the\nbays, the harbours, are large, deep, magnificent, and innumerable.\nPrecious metals can be dug out almost at the surface of the ground. The\nvegetable world yields in abundance, and almost of its own accord, the\nnecessaries of life in the most varied forms; while the animals, most of\nwhich are good for food, are a still more valuable source of wealth. And\nyet the greater part of this happy land has been occupied, for\ncenturies, by peoples who have not succeeded, to the slightest extent,\nin exploiting their treasures.\n\nSome have started on the road to improvement. In more than one place we\ncome upon an attenuated kind of culture, a rudimentary attempt to\nextract the minerals. The traveller may still, to his surprise, find a\nfew useful arts being practised with a certain ingenuity. But all these\nefforts are very humble and uncoordinated; they are certainly not the\nbeginnings of any definite civilization. In the vast territory between\nLake Erie and the Gulf of Mexico, the River Missouri and the Rocky\nMountains,[24] there certainly existed, in remote ages, a nation which\nhas left remarkable traces of its presence. The remains of buildings,\nthe inscriptions engraved on rocks, the tumuli,[25] the mummies, show\nthat it had reached an advanced state of mental culture. But there is\nnothing to prove a very close kinship between this mysterious people and\nthe tribes that now wander over its tombs. Suppose, if you will, that\nthere was some relation between them, whether by way of blood or of\nslavery, and that thus the natives of to-day did learn from the ancient\nlords of the country, the first rudiments of the arts they practise so\nimperfectly; this only makes us wonder the more that they should have\nfound it impossible to carry any further what they had been taught. In\nfact, this would supply one more reason for my belief that not every\npeople would be capable of civilization, even if it chose the most\nfavoured spot on earth as its settlement.\n\nIndeed, civilization is quite independent of climate and soil, and their\nadaptability to man\u2019s wants. India and Egypt are both countries which\nhave had to be artificially fertilized;[26] yet they are famous centres\nof human culture and development. In China, certain regions are\nnaturally fertile; but others have needed great labour to fit them for\ncultivation. Chinese history begins with the conquest of the rivers. The\nfirst benefits conferred by the ancient Emperors were the opening of\ncanals and the draining of marshes. In the country between the Euphrates\nand the Tigris, that beheld the splendour of the first Assyrian empire,\nand is the majestic scene of our most sacred recollections\u2014in this\nregion, where wheat is said to grow of its own accord,[27] the soil is\nnaturally so unproductive that vast works of irrigation, carried out in\nthe teeth of every difficulty, have been needed to make it a fit abode\nfor man. Now that the canals are destroyed or filled up, sterility has\nresumed its ancient reign. I am therefore inclined to believe that\nnature did not favour these regions as much as we are apt to think. But\nI will not discuss the point. I will grant, if you like, that China,\nEgypt, India, and Assyria, contained all the conditions of prosperity,\nand were eminently suited for the founding of powerful empires and the\ndevelopment of great civilizations. But, we must also admit, these\nconditions were of such a kind that, in order to receive any benefit\nfrom them the inhabitants must have reached beforehand, by other means,\na high stage of social culture. Thus, for the commerce to be able to\nmake use of the great waterways, manufactures, or at any rate\nagriculture, must have already existed; again, neighbouring peoples\nwould not have been attracted to these great centres before towns and\nmarkets had grown up and prospered. Thus the great natural advantages of\nChina, India, and Assyria, imply not only a considerable mental power on\nthe part of the nations that profited by them, but even a civilization\ngoing back beyond the day when these advantages began to be exploited.\nWe will now leave these specially favoured regions, and consider others.\n\nWhen the Ph\u0153nicians, in the course of their migration, left Tylos, or\nsome other island in the south-east, and settled in a portion of Syria,\nwhat did they find in their new home? A desert and rocky coast, forming\na narrow strip of land between the sea and a range of cliffs that seemed\nto be cursed with everlasting barrenness. There was no room for\nexpansion in such a place, for the girdle of mountains was unbroken on\nall sides. And yet this wretched country, which should have been a\nprison, became, thanks to the industry of its inhabitants, a crown\nstudded with temples and palaces. The Ph\u0153nicians, who seemed for ever\ncondemned to be a set of fish-eating barbarians, or at most a miserable\ncrew of pirates, were, as a fact, pirates on a grand scale; they were\nalso clever and enterprising merchants, bold and lucky speculators.\n\u201cYes,\u201d it may be objected, \u201cnecessity is the mother of invention; if the\nfounders of Tyre and Sidon had settled in the plains of Damascus, they\nwould have been content to live by agriculture, and would probably have\nnever become a famous nation. Misery sharpened their wits, and awakened\ntheir genius.\u201d\n\nThen why does it not awaken the genius of all the tribes of Africa,\nAmerica, and Oceania, who find themselves in a similar condition? The\nKabyles of Morocco are an ancient race; they have certainly had a long\ntime for reflection, and, what is more striking still, have had every\nreason to imitate the customs of their betters; why then have they never\nthought of a more fruitful way of alleviating their wretchedness than\nmere brigandage on the high seas? Why, in the Indian archipelago, which\nseems created for trade, and in the Pacific islands, where\nintercommunication is so easy, are nearly all the commercial advantages\nin the hands of foreigners\u2014Chinese, Malays, and Arabs? And where\nhalf-caste natives or other mixed races have been able to share in these\nadvantages, why has the trade at once fallen off? Why is the internal\nexchange of commodities carried on more and more by elementary methods\nof barter? The fact is, that for a commercial state to be established on\nany coast or island, something more is necessary than an open sea, and\nthe pressure exerted by the barrenness of the land\u2014something more, even,\nthan the lessons learned from the experience of others; the native of\nthe coast or the island must be gifted with the special talent that\nalone can lead him to profit by the tools that lie to his hand, and\nalone can point him the road to success.\n\nIt is not enough to show that a nation\u2019s value in the scale of\ncivilization does not come from the fertility\u2014or, to be more precise,\nthe infertility\u2014of the country where it happens to live. I must also\nprove that this value is quite independent of all the material\nconditions of environment. For example, the Armenians, shut up in their\nmountains\u2014the same mountains where, for generations, so many other\npeoples have lived and died in barbarism\u2014had already reached a high\nstage of civilization in a very remote age. Yet their country was almost\nentirely cut off from others; it had no communication with the sea, and\ncould boast of no great fertility.\n\nThe Jews were in a similar position. They were surrounded by tribes\nspeaking the dialects of a language cognate with their own, and for the\nmost part closely connected with them in race; yet they outdistanced all\nthese tribes. They became warriors, farmers, and traders. Their method\nof government was extremely complicated; it was a mixture of monarchy\nand theocracy, of patriarchal and democratic rule (this last being\nrepresented by the assemblies and the prophets), all in a curious\nequilibrium. Under this government they lived through long ages of\nprosperity and glory, and by a scientific system of emigration they\nconquered the difficulties that were put in the way of their expansion\nby the narrow limits of their territory. And what kind of territory was\nit? Modern travellers know what an amount of organized effort was\nrequired from the Israelite farmers, in order to keep up its artificial\nfertility. Since the chosen race ceased to dwell in the mountains and\nthe plains of Palestine, the well where Jacob\u2019s flocks came down to\ndrink has been filled up with sand, Naboth\u2019s vineyard has been invaded\nby the desert, and the bramble flourishes in the place where stood the\npalace of Ahab. And what did the Jews become, in this miserable corner\nof the earth? They became a people that succeeded in everything it\nundertook, a free, strong, and intelligent people, and one which, before\nit lost, sword in hand, the name of an independent nation, had given as\nmany learned men to the world as it had merchants.[28]\n\nThe Greeks themselves could not wholly congratulate themselves on their\ngeographical position. Their country was a wretched one, for the most\npart. Arcadia was beloved of shepherds, B\u0153otia claimed to be dear to\nDemeter and Triptolemus; but Arcadia and B\u0153otia play a very minor part\nin Greek history. The rich and brilliant Corinth itself, favoured by\nPlutus and Aphrodite, is in this respect only in the second rank. To\nwhich city belongs the chief glory? To Athens, where the fields and\nolive-groves were perpetually covered with grey dust, and where statues\nand books were the main articles of commerce; to Sparta also, a city\nburied in a narrow valley, at the foot of a mass of rocks which Victory\nhad to cross to find her out.\n\nAnd what of the miserable quarter of Latium that was chosen for the\nfoundation of Rome? The little river Tiber, on whose banks it lay,\nflowed down to an almost unknown coast, that no Greek or Ph\u0153nician ship\nhad ever touched, save by chance; was it through her situation that Rome\nbecame the mistress of the world? No sooner did the whole world lie at\nthe feet of the Roman eagles, than the central government found that its\ncapital was ill-placed; and the long series of insults to the eternal\ncity began. The early emperors had their eyes turned towards Greece, and\nnearly always lived there. When Tiberius was in Italy he stayed at\nCapri, a point facing the two halves of the empire. His successors went\nto Antioch. Some of them, in view of the importance of Gaul, went as far\nnorth as Treves. Finally, an edict took away even the title of chief\ncity from Rome and conferred it on Milan. If the Romans made some stir\nin the world, it was certainly in spite of the position of the district\nfrom which their first armies issued forth.\n\nComing down to modern history I am overwhelmed by the multitude of facts\nthat support my theory. I see prosperity suddenly leaving the\nMediterranean coasts, a clear proof that it was not inseparably attached\nto them. The great commercial cities of the Middle Ages grew up in\nplaces where no political philosopher of an earlier time would have\nthought of founding them. Novgorod rose in the midst of an ice-bound\nland; Bremen on a coast almost as cold. The Hanseatic towns in the\ncentre of Germany were built in regions plunged, as it seemed, in\nimmemorial slumber. Venice emerged from a deep gulf in the Adriatic. The\nbalance of political power was shifted to places scarcely heard of\nbefore, but now gleaming with a new splendour. In France the whole\nstrength was concentrated to the north of the Loire, almost beyond the\nSeine. Lyons, Toulouse, Narbonne, Marseilles, and Bordeaux fell from the\nhigh dignity to which they had been called by the Romans. It was Paris\nthat became the important city, Paris, which was too far from the sea\nfor purposes of trade, and which would soon prove too near to escape the\ninvasions of the Norman pirates. In Italy, towns formerly of the lowest\nrank became greater than the city of the Popes. Ravenna rose from its\nmarshes, Amalfi began its long career of power. Chance, I may remark,\nhad no part in these changes, which can all be explained by the\npresence, at the given point, of a victorious or powerful race. In other\nwords, a nation does not derive its value from its position; it never\nhas and never will. On the contrary, it is the people which has always\ngiven\u2014and always will give\u2014to the land its moral, economic, and\npolitical value.\n\nI add, for the sake of clearness, that I have no wish to deny the\nimportance of geographical position for certain towns, whether they are\ntrade-centres, ports, or capitals. The arguments that have been brought\nforward,[29] in the case of Constantinople and especially of Alexandria,\nare indisputable. There certainly exist different points which we may\ncall \u201cthe keys of the earth.\u201d Thus we may imagine that when the isthmus\nof Panama is pierced, the power holding the town that is yet to be built\non the hypothetical canal, might play a great part in the history of the\nworld. But this part will be played well, badly, or even not at all,\naccording to the intrinsic excellence of the people in question. Make\nChagres into a large city, let the two seas meet under its walls, and\nassume that you are free to fill it with what settlers you will. Your\nchoice will finally determine the future of the new town. Suppose that\nChagres is not exactly in the best position to develop all the\nadvantages coming from the junction of the two oceans; then, if the race\nis really worthy of its high calling, it will remove to some other place\nwhere it may in perfect freedom work out its splendid destiny.[30]\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VII\n CHRISTIANITY NEITHER CREATES NOR CHANGES THE CAPACITY FOR CIVILIZATION\n\n\nAfter my arguments on the subject of institutions and climates, I come\nto another, which I should really have put before all the rest; not that\nI think it stronger than they are, but because the facts on which it is\nbased naturally command our reverence. If my conclusions in the\npreceding chapters are admitted, two points become increasingly evident:\nfirst, that most human races are for ever incapable of civilization, so\nlong as they remain unmixed; secondly, that such races are not only\nwithout the inner impulse necessary to start them on the path of\nimprovement, but also that no external force, however energetic in other\nrespects, is powerful enough to turn their congenital barrenness into\nfertility. Here we shall be asked, no doubt, whether the light of\nChristianity is to shine in vain on entire nations, and whether some\npeoples are doomed never to behold it at all.\n\nSome writers have answered in the affirmative. They have not scrupled to\ncontradict the promise of the Gospel, by denying the most characteristic\nfeature of the new law, which is precisely that of being accessible to\nall men. Their view merely restates the old formula of the Hebrews, to\nwhich it returns by a little larger gate than that of the Old Covenant;\nbut it returns all the same. I have no desire to follow the champions of\nthis idea, which is condemned by the Church, nor have I the least\ndifficulty in admitting that all human races are gifted with an equal\ncapacity for being received into the bosom of the Christian Communion.\nHere there is no impediment arising from any original difference between\nraces; for this purpose their inequalities are of no account. Religions\nand their followers are not, as has been assumed, distributed in zones\nover the surface of the earth. It is not true that Christianity must\nrule from this meridian to that, while from such and such a point Islam\ntakes up the sceptre, holding it only as far as a certain impassable\nfrontier, and then having to deliver it into the hands of Buddhism or\nBrahmanism, while the fetichists of the tribe of Ham divide among\nthemselves the rest of the world.\n\nChristians are found in all latitudes and all climates. Statistics,\ninaccurate perhaps, but still approximately true, show us a vast number\nof them, Mongols wandering in the plains of Upper Asia, savages hunting\non the tableland of the Cordilleras, Eskimos fishing in the ice of the\nArctic circle, even Chinese and Japanese dying under the scourge of the\npersecutor. The least observation will show this, and will also prevent\nus from falling into the very common error of confusing the universal\npower of recognizing the truths of Christianity and following its\nprecepts, with the very different faculty that leads one human race, and\nnot another, to understand the earthly conditions of social improvement,\nand to be able to pass from one rung of the ladder to another, so as to\nreach finally the state which we call _civilization_. The rungs of this\nladder are the measure of the inequality of human races.\n\nIt was held, quite wrongly, in the last century, that the doctrine of\nrenunciation, a corner-stone of Christianity, was essentially opposed to\nsocial development; and that people to whom the highest virtue consists\nin despising the things here below, and in turning their eyes and\nhearts, without ceasing, towards the heavenly Jerusalem, will not do\nmuch to help the progress of this world. The very imperfection of man\nmay serve to rebut such an argument. There has never been any serious\nreason to fear that he will renounce the joys of earth; and though the\ncounsels of religion were expressly directed to this point, we may say\nthat they were pulling against a current that they knew to be\nirresistible, and were merely demanding a great deal in order to obtain\na very little. Further, the Christian precepts are a great aid to\nsociety; they plane away all roughness, they pour the oil of charity on\nall social relations, they condemn violence, force men to appeal to the\nsole authority of reason, and so gain for the spirit a plenitude of\npower which works in a thousand ways for the good of the flesh. Again,\nreligion elevates the mind by the metaphysical and intellectual\ncharacter of its dogmas, while through the purity of its moral ideal it\ntends to free the spirit from a host of corrosive vices and weaknesses,\nwhich are dangerous to material progress. Thus, as against the\nphilosophers of the eighteenth century, we are right in calling\nChristianity a civilizing power\u2014but only within certain limits; if we\ntake the words in too wide a sense, we shall find ourselves drawn into a\nmaze of error.\n\nChristianity is a civilizing force in so far as it makes a man better\nminded and better mannered; yet it is only indirectly so, for it has no\nidea of applying this improvement in morals and intelligence to the\nperishable things of this world, and it is always content with the\nsocial conditions in which it finds its neophytes, however imperfect the\nconditions may be. So long as it can pull out the noxious weeds that\nstifle the well-being of the soul, it is indifferent to everything else.\nIt leaves all men as it finds them\u2014the Chinese in his robes, the Eskimo\nin his furs, the first eating rice, and the second eating whale-blubber.\nIt does not require them to change their way of life. If their state can\nbe improved as a direct consequence of their conversion, then\nChristianity will certainly do its best to bring such an improvement\nabout; but it will not try to alter a single custom, and certainly will\nnot force any advance from one civilization to another, for it has not\nyet adopted one itself. It uses all civilizations and is above all.\nThere are proofs in abundance, and I will speak of them in a moment; but\nI must first make the confession that I have never understood the\nultra-modern doctrine which identifies the law of Christ and the\ninterests of this world in such a way that it creates from their union a\nfictitious social order which it calls \u201cChristian civilization.\u201d\n\nThere is certainly such a thing as a pagan civilization, just as there\nis a Brahman, Buddhist, or Jewish civilization. Societies have existed,\nand still exist, which are absolutely based on religion. Religion has\ngiven them their constitution, drawn up their laws, settled their civic\nduties, marked out their frontiers, and prescribed their foreign policy.\nSuch societies have only been able to persist by placing themselves\nunder a more or less strict theocracy. We can no more imagine their\nliving without their rites and creeds than we can imagine the rites and\ncreeds existing by themselves, without the people. The whole of\nantiquity was more or less in this condition. Roman statesmanship\ncertainly invented the legal tolerance of creeds, and a decadent\ntheology produced a vast system of fusion and assimilation of cults; but\nthese belonged to the latest age of paganism, when the fruit was already\nrotten on the tree. While it was young and flourishing, there were as\nmany Jupiters, Mercuries, and Venuses, as there were towns. The god was\na jealous god, in a sense quite different from the jealousy of the\nJewish God; he was still more exclusive, and recognized no one but his\nfellow-citizens in this world and the next. Every ancient civilization\nrose to greatness under the \u00e6gis of some divinity, of some particular\ncult. Religion and the State were united so closely and inseparably that\nthe responsibility for all that happened was shared between them. We may\nspeak, if we will, of \u201cfinding traces of the cult of the Tyrian Heracles\nin the public policy of Carthage\u201d; but I think that we can really\nidentify the effects of the doctrines taught by the priests with the\npolicy of the suffetes and the trend of social development. Again, I\nhave no doubt that the dog-headed Anubis, Isis Neith, and the Ibises\ntaught the men of the Nile valley all that they knew and practised.\nChristianity, however, acted in this respect quite differently from all\npreceding religions; this was its greatest innovation. Unlike them, it\nhad no chosen people. It was addressed to the whole world, not only to\nthe rich or the poor. From the first it received from the Holy Ghost the\ngift of tongues,[31] that it might speak to each man in the language of\nhis country, and proclaim the Gospel by means of the ideas and images\nthat each nation could best understand. It did not come to change the\noutward part of man, the material world; it taught him to despise this\noutward part, and was only concerned with his inner self. We read in a\nvery ancient apocryphal book, \u201cLet not the strong man boast of his\nstrength, nor the rich man of his riches; but let him who will be\nglorified glorify himself in the Lord.\u201d[32] Strength, riches, worldly\npower, and the way of ambition\u2014all these have no meaning for our law. No\ncivilization whatever has excited its envy or contempt; and because of\nthis rare impartiality, and the consequences that were to flow from it,\nthe law could rightly call itself \u201cCatholic,\u201d or universal. It does not\nbelong exclusively to any civilization. It did not come to bless any one\nform of earthly existence; it rejects none, and would purify all.\n\nThe canonical books, the writings of the Fathers, the stories of the\nmissionaries of all ages, are filled with proofs of this indifference to\nthe outward forms of social life, and to social life itself. Provided\nthat a man believes, and that none of his daily actions tend to\ntransgress the ordinances of religion, nothing else matters. Of what\nimportance is the shape of a Christian\u2019s house, the cut and material of\nhis clothes, his system of government, the measure of tyranny or liberty\nin his public institutions? He may be a fisherman, a hunter, a\nploughman, a sailor, a soldier\u2014whatever you like. In all these different\nemployments is there anything to prevent a man\u2014to whatever nation he\nbelong, English, Turkish, Siberian, American, Hottentot\u2014from receiving\nthe light of the Christian faith? Absolutely nothing; and when this\nresult is attained, the rest counts for very little. The savage Galla\ncan remain a Galla, and yet become as staunch a believer, as pure a\n\u201cvessel of election,\u201d as the holiest prelate in Europe. It is here that\nChristianity shows its striking superiority to other religions, in its\npeculiar quality of _grace_. We must not take this away, in deference to\na favourite idea of modern Europe, that something of material utility\nmust be found everywhere, even in the holiest things.\n\nDuring the eighteen centuries that the Church has existed, it has\nconverted many nations. In all these it has allowed the political\nconditions to reign unchecked, just as it found them at first. It began\nby protesting to the world of antiquity that it did not wish to alter in\nthe slightest degree the outward forms of society. It has been even\nreproached, on occasion, with an excess of tolerance in this respect;\ncompare, for example, the attitude of the Jesuits towards the Chinese\nceremonies. We do not, however, find that Christianity has ever given\nthe world a unique type of civilization to which all believers had to\nbelong. The Church adapts itself to everything, even to the mud-hut; and\nwherever there is a savage too stupid even to understand the use of\nshelter, you are sure to find a devoted missionary sitting beside him on\nthe hard rock, and thinking of nothing but how to impress his soul with\nthe ideas essential to salvation. Christianity is thus not a civilizing\npower in the ordinary sense of the word; it can be embraced by the most\ndifferent races without stunting their growth, or making demands on them\nthat they cannot fulfil.\n\nI said above that Christianity elevates the soul by the sublimity of its\ndogmas, and enlarges the intellect by their subtlety. This is only true\nin so far as the soul and intellect to which it appeals are capable of\nbeing enlarged and elevated. Its mission is not to bestow the gift of\ngenius, or to provide ideas for those who are without them. Neither\ngenius nor ideas are necessary for salvation. Indeed the Church has\nexpressly declared that it prefers the weak and lowly to the strong. It\ngives only what it wishes to receive. It fertilizes but does not create.\nIt supports but does not lift on high. It takes the man as he is, and\nmerely helps him to walk. If he is lame, it does not ask him to run.\n\nIf I open the \u201cLives of the Saints,\u201d shall I find many wise men among\nthem? Certainly not. The company of the blessed ones whose name and\nmemory are honoured by the Church consists mainly of those who were\neminent for their virtue and devotion; but, though full of genius in all\nthat concerned heaven, they had none for the things of earth. When I see\nSt. Rosa of Lima honoured equally with St. Bernard, the intercession of\nSt. Zita valued no less than that of St. Teresa; when I see all the\nAnglo-Saxon saints, most of the Irish monks, the unsavoury hermits of\nthe Egyptian Thebaid, the legions of martyrs who sprang from the dregs\nof the people and whom a sudden flash of courage and devotion raised to\nshine eternally in glory\u2014when I see all these venerated to the same\nextent as the cleverest apologists of dogma, as the wisest champions of\nthe faith, then I find myself justified in my conclusion that\nChristianity is not a civilizing power, in the narrow and worldly sense\nof the phrase. Just as it merely asks of every man what he has himself\nreceived, so it asks nothing of any race but what it is capable of\ngiving, and does not set it in a higher place among the civilized races\nof the earth than its natural powers give it a right to expect. Hence I\nabsolutely deny the egalitarian argument which identifies the\npossibility of adopting the Christian faith with that of an unlimited\nintellectual growth. Most of the tribes of South America were received\ncenturies ago into the bosom of the Church; but they have always\nremained savages, with no understanding of the European civilization\nunfolding itself before their eyes. I am not surprised that the\nCherokees of North America have been largely converted by Methodist\nmissionaries; but it would greatly astonish me if this tribe, while it\nremained pure in blood, ever managed to form one of the States of the\nAmerican Union, or exert any influence in Congress. I find it quite\nnatural also that the Danish Lutherans and the Moravians should have\nopened the eyes of the Eskimos to the light of faith; but I think it\nequally natural that their disciples should have remained in the social\ncondition in which they had been stagnating for ages. Again, the Swedish\nLapps are, as we might have expected, in the same state of barbarism as\ntheir ancestors, even though centuries have passed since the gospel\nfirst brought them the message of salvation. All these peoples may\nproduce\u2014perhaps have produced already\u2014men conspicuous for their piety\nand the purity of their lives; but I do not expect to see learned\ntheologians among them, or skilful soldiers, or clever mathematicians,\nor great artists. In other words they will for ever exclude the select\ncompany of the fine spirits who clasp hands across the ages and\ncontinually renew the strength of the dominant races. Still less will\nthose rare and mighty geniuses appear who are followed by their nations,\nin the paths they mark out for themselves, only if those nations are\nthemselves able to understand them and go forward under their direction.\nEven as a matter of justice we must leave Christianity absolutely out of\nthe present question. If all races are equally capable of receiving its\nbenefits, it cannot have been sent to bring equality among men. Its\nkingdom, we may say, is in the most literal sense \u201cnot of this world.\u201d\n\nMany people are accustomed to judge the merits of Christianity in the\nlight of the prejudices natural to our age; and I fear that, in spite of\nwhat I have said above, they may have some difficulty in getting rid of\ntheir inaccurate ideas. Even if they agree on the whole with my\nconclusions, they may still believe that the scale is turned by the\nindirect action of religion on conduct, of conduct on institutions, of\ninstitutions on the whole social order. I cannot admit any such action.\nMy opponents will assert that the personal influence of the\nmissionaries, nay, their mere presence, will be enough to change\nappreciably the political condition of the converts and their ideas of\nmaterial well-being. They will say, for example, that these apostles\nnearly always (though not invariably) come from a nation more advanced\nthan that to which they are preaching; thus they will of their own\naccord, almost by instinct, change the merely human customs of their\ndisciples, while they are reforming their morals. Suppose the\nmissionaries have to do with savages, plunged in an abyss of\nwretchedness through their own ignorance. They will instruct them in\nuseful arts and show them how men escape from famine by work on the\nland. After providing the necessary tools for this, they will go\nfurther, and teach them how to build better huts, to rear cattle, to\ncontrol the water-supply\u2014both in order to irrigate their fields, and to\nprevent inundations. Little by little they will manage to give them\nenough taste for matters of the intellect to make them use an alphabet,\nand perhaps, as the Cherokees have done,[33] invent one for themselves.\nFinally, if they are exceptionally successful, they will bring their\ncultivated disciples to imitate so exactly the customs of which the\nmissionaries have told them, that they will possess, like the Cherokees\nand the Creeks on the south bank of the Arkansas, flocks of valuable\nsheep, and even a collection of black slaves to work on their\nplantations. They will be completely equipped for living on the land.\n\nI have expressly chosen as examples the two races which are considered\nto be the most advanced of all. Yet, far from agreeing with the\nadvocates of equality, I cannot imagine any more striking instances than\nthese of the general incapacity of any race to adopt a way of life which\nit could not have found for itself.\n\nThese two peoples are the isolated remnant of many nations which have\nbeen driven out or annihilated by the whites. They are naturally on a\ndifferent plane from the rest, since they are supposed to be descended\nfrom the ancient Alleghany race to which the great ruins found to the\nnorth of the Mississippi are attributed.[34] Here is already a great\ninconsistency in the arguments of those who assert that the Cherokees\nare the equals of the European races; for the first step in their proof\nis that these Alleghany tribes are near the Anglo-Saxons precisely\nbecause they are themselves superior to the other races of North\nAmerica! Well, what has happened to these chosen peoples? The American\nGovernment took their ancient territories from both the tribes, and, by\nmeans of a special treaty, made them emigrate to a definite region,\nwhere separate places of settlement were marked out for them. Here,\nunder the general superintendence of the Ministry of War and the direct\nguidance of Protestant missionaries, they were forced to take up their\npresent mode of life, whether they liked it or not. The writer from whom\nI borrow these details\u2014and who has himself taken them from the great\nwork of Gallatin[35]\u2014says the number of the Cherokees is continually\nincreasing. His argument is that at the time when Adair visited them,\ntheir warriors were estimated at 2300, while to-day the sum-total of\ntheir population is calculated to be 15,000; this figure includes, it is\ntrue, the 1200 negro slaves who have become their property. He also\nadds, however, that their schools are, like their churches, in the hands\nof the missionaries, and that these missionaries, being Protestants, are\nfor the most part married men with white children or servants, and\nprobably also a sort of general staff of Europeans, acting as clerks,\nand the like. It thus becomes very difficult to establish the fact of\nany real increase in the number of the natives, while on the other hand\nit is very easy to appreciate the strong pressure that must be exerted\nby the European race over its pupils.[36]\n\nThe possibility of making war is clearly taken away from them; they are\nexiled, surrounded on all sides by the American power, which is too vast\nfor them to comprehend, and are, I believe, sincerely converted to the\nreligion of their masters. They are kindly treated by their spiritual\nguides and convinced of the necessity for working, in the sense in which\nwork is understood by their masters, if they are not to die of hunger.\nUnder these conditions I can quite imagine that they will become\nsuccessful agriculturists, and will learn to carry out the ideas that\nhave been dinned into them, day in, day out, without ceasing.\n\nBy the exercise of a little patience and by the judicious use of hunger\nas a spur to greed, we can teach animals what they would never learn by\ninstinct. But to cry out at our success would be to rate much lower than\nit is the intelligence even of the humblest member of the human family.\nWhen the village fairs are full of learned animals going through the\nmost complicated tricks, can we be surprised that men, who have been\nsubmitted to a rigorous training and cut off from all means of escape or\nrelaxation, should manage to perform those functions of civilized life\nwhich, even in a savage state, they might be able to understand, without\nhaving the desire to practise them? The result is a matter of course;\nand anyone who is surprised at it is putting man far below the\ncard-playing dog or the horse who orders his dinner! By arbitrarily\ngathering one\u2019s premises from the \u201cintelligent actions\u201d of a few human\ngroups, one ends in being too easily satisfied, and in coming to feel\nenthusiasms which are not very flattering even to those who are their\nobjects.\n\nI know that some learned men have given colour to these rather obvious\ncomparisons by asserting that between some human races and the larger\napes there is only a slight difference of degree, and none of kind. As I\nabsolutely reject such an insult to humanity, I may be also allowed to\ntake no notice of the exaggerations by which it is usually answered. I\nbelieve, of course, that human races are unequal; but I do not think\nthat any of them are like the brute, or to be classed with it. The\nlowest tribe, the most backward and miserable variety of the human\nspecies, is at least capable of imitation; and I have no doubt that if\nwe take one of the most hideous bushmen, we could develop\u2014I do not say\nin him, if he is already grown up, but in his son or at any rate his\ngrandson\u2014sufficient intelligence to make his acts correspond to a\ncertain degree of civilization, even if this required some conscious\neffort of study on his part. Are we to infer that the people to which he\nbelongs could be civilized on our model? This would be a hasty and\nsuperficial conclusion. From the practice of the arts and professions\ninvented under an advanced civilization, it is a far cry to that\ncivilization itself. Further, though the Protestant missionaries are an\nindispensable link between the savage tribe and the central civilizing\npower, is it certain that these missionaries are equal to the task\nimposed on them? Are they the masters of a complete system of social\nscience? I doubt it. If communications were suddenly cut off between the\nAmerican Government and its spiritual legates among the Cherokees, the\ntraveller would find in the native farms, at the end of a few years,\nsome new practices that he had not expected. These would result from the\nmixture of white and Indian blood; and our traveller would look in vain\nfor anything more than a very pale copy of what is taught at New York.\n\nWe often hear of negroes who have learnt music, who are clerks in\nbanking-houses, and who know how to read, write, count, dance, and\nspeak, like white men. People are astonished at this, and conclude that\nthe negro is capable of everything! And then, in the same breath, they\nwill express surprise at the contrast between the Slav civilization and\nour own. The Russians, Poles, and Serbians (they will say), even though\nthey are far nearer to us than the negroes, are only civilized on the\nsurface; the higher classes alone participate in our ideas, owing to the\ncontinual admixture of English, French, and German blood. The masses, on\nthe other hand, are invincibly ignorant of the Western world and its\nmovements, although they have been Christian for so many centuries\u2014in\nmany cases before we were converted ourselves! The solution is simple.\nThere is a great difference between imitation and conviction. Imitation\ndoes not necessarily imply a serious breach with hereditary instincts;\nbut no one has a real part in any civilization until he is able to make\nprogress by himself, without direction from others.[37] What is the use\nof telling me how clever some particular savages are in guiding the\nplough, in spelling, or reading, when they are only repeating the\nlessons they have learnt? Show me rather, among the many regions in\nwhich negroes have lived for ages in contact with Europeans, one single\nplace where, in addition to the religious doctrines, the ideas, customs,\nand institutions of even one European people have been so completely\nassimilated that progress in them is made as naturally and spontaneously\nas among ourselves. Show me a place where the introduction of printing\nhas had results, similar to those in Europe, where our sciences are\nbrought to perfection, where new applications are made of our\ndiscoveries, where our philosophies are the parents of other\nphilosophies, of political systems, of literature and art, of books,\nstatues, and pictures!\n\nBut I am not really so exacting and narrow-minded as I seem. I am not\nseriously asking that a people should adopt our whole individuality at\nthe same time as our faith. I am willing to admit that it should reject\nour way of thinking and strike out quite a different one. Well then! let\nme see our negro, at the moment when he opens his eyes to the light of\nthe Gospel, suddenly realizing that his earthly path is as dark and\nperplexed as his spiritual life was before. Let me see him creating for\nhimself a new social order in his own image, putting ideas into practice\nthat have hitherto rusted unused, taking foreign notions and moulding\nthem to his purpose. I will wait long for the work to be finished; I\nmerely ask that it may be begun. But it has never been begun; it has\nnever even been attempted. You may search through all the pages of\nhistory, and you will not find a single people that has attained to\nEuropean civilization by adopting Christianity, or has been brought by\nthe great fact of its conversion to civilize itself when it was not\ncivilized already.\n\nOn the other hand, I shall find, in the vast tracts of Southern Asia and\nin certain parts of Europe, States fused together out of men of very\ndifferent religions. The unalterable hostility of races, however, will\nbe found side by side with that of cults; we can distinguish the Pathan\nwho has become a Christian from the converted Hindu, just as easily as\nwe separate to-day the Russian of Orenburg from the nomad Christian\ntribes among which he lives.\n\nOnce more, Christianity is not a civilizing power, and has excellent\nreasons for not being so.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VIII\nDEFINITION OF THE WORD \u201cCIVILIZATION\u201d; SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT HAS A TWOFOLD\n                                 ORIGIN\n\n\nHere I must enter on a digression vital to my argument. At every turn I\nam using a word involving a circle of ideas which it is very necessary\nto define. I am continually speaking of \u201ccivilization,\u201d and cannot help\ndoing so; for it is only by the existence in some measure, or the\ncomplete absence, of this attribute that I can gauge the relative merits\nof the different races. I refer both to European civilization and to\nothers which may be distinguished from it. I must not leave the\nslightest vagueness on this point, especially as I differ from the\ncelebrated writer who alone in France has made it his special business\nto fix the meaning and province of this particular word.\n\nGuizot, if I may be allowed to dispute his great authority, begins his\nbook on \u201cCivilization in Europe\u201d by a confusion of terms which leads him\ninto serious error. He calls civilization an _event_.\n\nThe word _event_ must be used by Guizot in a less positive and accurate\nway than it usually is\u2014in a wide, uncertain, elastic sense that it never\nbears; otherwise, it does not properly define the meaning of the word\n_civilization_ at all. Civilization is not an event, it is a _series_, a\n_chain_ of events linked more or less logically together and brought\nabout by the inter-action of ideas which are often themselves very\ncomplex. There is a continual bringing to birth of further ideas and\nevents. The result is sometimes incessant movement, sometimes\nstagnation. In either case, civilization is not an event, but an\nassemblage of events and ideas, a _state_ in which a human society\nsubsists, an _environment_ with which it has managed to surround itself,\nwhich is created by it, emanates from it, and in turn reacts on it.\n\nThis state is universal in a sense in which an event never is. It admits\nof many variations which it could not survive if it were merely an\nevent. Further, it is quite independent of all forms of government; it\nmakes as much progress under a despotism as under the freest democracy,\nand it does not cease to exist when the conditions of political life are\nmodified or even absolutely changed by civil war.\n\nThis does not mean that we may more or less neglect the forms of\ngovernment. They are intimately bound up with the health of the social\norganism; its prosperity is impaired or destroyed if the choice of\ngovernment is bad, favoured and developed if the choice is good. But we\nare not concerned here with mere questions of prosperity. Our subject is\nmore serious. It deals with the very existence of peoples and of\ncivilization; and civilization has to do with certain elemental\nconditions which are independent of politics, and have to look far\ndeeper for the motive-forces that bring them into being, direct, and\nexpand them, make them fruitful or barren and, in a word, mould their\nwhole life. In face of such root-questions as these, considerations of\ngovernment, prosperity, and misery naturally take a second place. The\nfirst place is always and everywhere held by the question \u201cto be or not\nto be,\u201d which is as supreme for a people as for an individual. As Guizot\ndoes not seem to have realized this, civilization is to him not a state\nor an environment, but an _event_; and he finds its generating principle\nin another event, of a purely political character.\n\nIf we open his eloquent and famous book, we shall come upon a mass of\nhypotheses calculated to set his leading idea into relief. After\nmentioning a certain number of situations to which human societies might\ncome, the author asks \u201cwhether common instinct would recognize in these\nthe conditions under which a people _civilizes_ itself, in the natural\nsense of the word.\u201d\n\nThe first hypothesis is as follows: \u201cConsider a people whose external\nlife is easy and luxurious. It pays few taxes, and is in no distress.\nJustice is fairly administered between man and man. In fact, its\nmaterial and moral life is carefully kept in a state of inertia, of\ntorpor, I will not say of oppression, because there is no feeling of\nthis, but at any rate of repression. The case is not unexampled. There\nhave been a large number of little aristocratic republics, where the\nsubjects have been treated in this way, like sheep, well looked after\nand, in a material sense, happy, but without any intellectual or moral\nactivity. Is this civilization? And is such a people civilizing itself?\u201d\n\nI do not know whether it is actually civilizing itself; but certainly\nthe people of whom he speaks might be very \u201ccivilized.\u201d Otherwise, we\nshould have to rank among savage tribes or barbarians all the\naristocratic republics, of ancient and modern times, which Guizot\nconfessedly includes as instances of his hypothesis. The general\ninstinct would certainly be offended by a method that forbids not only\nthe Ph\u0153nicians, the Carthaginians, and the Spartans to enter the temple\nof civilization, but also the Venetians, the Genoese, the Pisans, and\nall the free Imperial cities of Germany, in a word all the powerful\nmunicipalities of the last few centuries. This conclusion seems in\nitself too violently paradoxical to be admitted by the common sense to\nwhich it appeals; but besides this, it has, I think, to face a still\ngreater difficulty. These little aristocratic States which, owing to\ntheir form of government, Guizot refuses to accept as capable of\ncivilization, have never, in most cases, possessed a special and unique\nculture. However powerful many of them may have been, they were in this\nrespect assimilated to peoples who were differently governed, but very\nnear them in race; they merely shared in a common civilization. Thus,\nthough the Carthaginians and the Ph\u0153nicians were at a great distance\nfrom each other, they were nevertheless united by a similar form of\nculture, which had its prototype in Assyria. The Italian republics took\npart in the movement of ideas and opinions which were dominant in the\nneighbouring monarchies. The Imperial towns of Swabia and Thuringia were\nquite independent politically, but were otherwise wholly within the\nsweep of the general progress or decadence of the German race. Hence\nwhile Guizot is distributing his orders of merit among the nations\naccording to their degree of political liberty and their forms of\ngovernment, he is really making cleavages, within races, that he cannot\njustify, and assuming differences that do not exist. A more detailed\ndiscussion of the point would hardly be in place here, and I pass on. If\nI did open such an argument, I should begin (and rightly I think) by\nrefusing to admit that Pisa, Genoa, Venice, and the rest were in any way\ninferior to towns such as Milan, Naples, and Rome.\n\nGuizot himself anticipates such an objection. He does not allow that a\npeople is civilized, \u201cwhich is governed mildly, but kept in a state of\nrepression\u201d; yet he also refuses civilization to another people \u201cwhose\nmaterial life is less easy and luxurious, though still tolerable, yet\nwhose moral and intellectual needs have not been neglected.... In the\npeople I am supposing,\u201d he says, \u201cpure and noble sentiments are\nfostered. Their religious and ethical beliefs are developed to a certain\ndegree, but the idea of freedom is extinct. Every one has his share of\ntruth doled out to him; no one is allowed to seek it for himself. This\nis the condition into which most of the Asiatic nations, the Hindus, for\nexample, have fallen; their manly qualities are sapped by the domination\nof the priests.\u201d\n\nThus into the same limbo as the aristocratic peoples must now be thrust\nthe Hindus, the Egyptians, the Etruscans, the Peruvians, the Tibetans,\nthe Japanese, and even the districts subject to modern Rome.\n\nI will not touch on Guizot\u2019s last two hypotheses, for the first two have\nso restricted the meaning of civilization that scarcely any nation of\nthe earth can rightly lay claim to it any more. In order to do so a\npeople would have to live under institutions in which power and freedom\nwere equally mingled, and material development and moral progress\nco-ordinated in one particular way. Government and religion would have\nstrict limits drawn round them, beyond which they would not be allowed\nto advance. Finally, the subjects would necessarily possess rights of a\nvery definite kind. On such an assumption, the only civilized peoples\nwould be those whose government is both constitutional and\nrepresentative. Thus, I should not be able to save any of the European\nnations from the indignity of being thrust into barbarism; and, as I\nshould be always measuring the degree of civilization with reference to\none single and unique political standard, I should gradually come to\nreject even those constitutional states that made a bad use of their\nParliaments, and keep the prize exclusively for those which used them\nwell. In the end I should be driven to consider only one nation, of all\nthat have ever lived, as truly civilized\u2014namely, the English.\n\nI am, of course, full of respect and admiration for the great people\nwhose power and prodigious deeds are witnessed in every corner of the\nworld by their victories, their industry, and their commerce. I do not,\nhowever, feel that I am bound to respect and admire no other. It seems\nto me a confession altogether too cruel and humiliating to mankind, to\nsay that, since the beginning of the ages, it has only succeeded in\nproducing the full flower of civilization on a little island in the\nwestern ocean, and that even there the true principle was not discovered\nbefore the reign of William and Mary. Such a conception seems, you must\nallow, a little narrow. And then consider its danger. If civilization\ndepends on a particular form of government, then reason, observation,\nand science will soon have no voice in the question at all;\nparty-feeling alone will decide. Some bold spirits will be found to\nfollow their own preferences, and refuse to the British institutions the\nhonour of being the ideal of human perfection; all their enthusiasm will\nbe given to the system established at Petrograd or Vienna. Many people,\nperhaps the majority of those living between the Rhine and the Pyrenees,\nwill hold that, in spite of some defects, France is still the most\ncivilized country in the world. The moment that a decision as to culture\nbecomes a matter of personal feeling, agreement is impossible. The most\nhighly developed man will be he who holds the same views as oneself as\nto the respective duties of ruler and subjects; while the unfortunate\npeople who happen to think differently will be barbarians and savages.\nNo one, I suppose, will question the logic of this, or dispute that a\nsystem that can lead to such a conclusion is, to say the least of it,\nvery incomplete.\n\nFor my own part, Guizot\u2019s definition seems to me inferior even to that\ngiven by William von Humboldt: \u201cCivilization is the humanizing of\npeoples both in their outward customs and institutions, and in the\ninward feelings that correspond to these.\u201d[38]\n\nThe defect here is the exact opposite of that which I have ventured to\nfind in Guizot\u2019s formula. The cord is too loose, the field of\napplication too wide. If civilization is acquired merely by softness of\ntemper, more than one very primitive tribe will have the right to claim\nit in preference to some European nation that may be rather rough in its\ncharacter. There are some tribes, in the islands of the South Pacific\nOcean and elsewhere, which are very mild and inoffensive, very easy of\napproach; and yet no one, even while praising them, has ever dreamed of\nsetting them above the surly Norwegians, or even at the side of the\nferocious Malays, who are clad in flaming robes made by themselves, who\nsail the seas in ships they have cleverly built with their own hands,\nand are the terror, and at the same time the most intelligent agents, of\nthe carrying trade to the Eastern ports of the Indian Ocean. So eminent\na thinker as von Humboldt could not fail to see this; by the side,\ntherefore, of civilization, and just one grade above it, he places\n_culture_. \u201cBy culture,\u201d he says, \u201ca people which is already humanized\nin its social relations attains to art and science.\u201d\n\nAccording to this hierarchy, we find the second age of the world[39]\nfilled with affectionate and sympathetic beings, poets, artists, and\nscholars. These, however, in their own nature, stand outside the grosser\nforms of work; they are as aloof from the hardships of war as they are\nfrom tilling the soil or practising the ordinary trades.\n\nThe leisure-time allowed for the exercise of the pure intellect is very\nsmall, even in times of the greatest happiness and stability; and there\nis an incessant struggle going on with Nature and the laws of the\nuniverse to gain even the bare means of subsistence. This being so, we\ncan easily see that our Berlin philosopher is less concerned with\ndescribing realities than with taking certain abstractions which seem to\nhim great and beautiful (as indeed they are), endowing them with life,\nand making them act and move in a sphere as ideal as they are\nthemselves. Any doubts that might remain on this point are soon\ndispelled when we come to the culminating-point of the system, which\nconsists of a third grade, higher than the others. Here stands the\n\u201ccompletely formed man,\u201d in whose nature is \u201csomething at once higher\nand more personal, a way of looking at the universe by which all the\nimpressions gathered from the intellectual and moral forces at work\naround him are welded harmoniously together and taken up into his\ncharacter and sensibility.\u201d\n\nIn this rather elaborate series the first stage is thus the \u201ccivilized\nman,\u201d that is, the softened or humanized man; the next is the \u201ccultured\nman,\u201d the poet, artist, and scholar, and the last is the highest point\nof development of which our species is capable, the \u201ccompletely formed\nman,\u201d\u2014of whom (if I understand the doctrine aright) we can gain an exact\nidea from what we are told of Goethe and his \u201cOlympian calm.\u201d The\nprinciple at the base of this theory is merely the vast difference which\nvon Humboldt sees between the general level of a people\u2019s civilization\nand the stage of perfection reached by a few great individuals. This\ndifference is so great that civilizations quite foreign to our own\u2014that\nof the Brahmans, for instance\u2014have been able, so far as we know, to\nproduce men far superior in some ways to those that are most admired\namong ourselves.\n\nI quite agree with von Humboldt on this point. It is quite true that our\nEuropean society gives us neither the most sublime thinkers, nor the\ngreatest poets, nor even the cleverest artists. I venture to think,\nhowever, in spite of the great scholar\u2019s opinion, that, in order to\ndefine and criticize civilization generally, we must, if only for a\nmoment, be careful to shake off our prejudices with regard to the\ndetails of some particular type. We must not cast our net so widely as\nto include the man in von Humboldt\u2019s first stage, whom I refuse to call\ncivilized merely because he happens to be mild in character. On the\nother hand we must not be so narrow as to reject every one but the\nphilosopher of the third stage. This would limit too strictly the scope\nof all human endeavour after progress, and present its results as merely\nisolated and individual.\n\nVon Humboldt\u2019s system does honour to the width and subtlety of a noble\nmind, and may be compared, in its essentially abstract nature, with the\nfrail worlds, imagined by the Hindu philosophers, which are born from\nthe brain of a sleeping god, rise into the \u00e6ther like the\nrainbow-coloured bubbles blown by a child, and then break and give place\nto others according to the dreams that lightly hover round the Divine\nslumber.\n\nThe nature of my investigations keeps me on a lower and more prosaic\nlevel; I wish to arrive at results that are a little more within the\nrange of practical experience. The restricted angle of my vision forbids\nme to consider, as Guizot does, the measure of prosperity enjoyed by\nhuman societies, or to contemplate, with von Humboldt, the high peaks on\nwhich a few great minds sit in solitary splendour; my inquiries concern\nmerely the amount of power, material as well as moral, that has been\ndeveloped among the mass of a people. It has made me uneasy, I confess,\nto see two of the most famous men of the century losing themselves in\nby-ways; and if I am to trust myself to follow a different road from\ntheirs, I must survey my ground, and go back as far as possible for my\npremises, in order to reach my goal without stumbling. I must ask the\nreader to follow me with patience and attention through the winding\npaths in which I have to walk, and I will try to illuminate, as far as I\ncan, the inherent obscurity of my subject.\n\nThere is no tribe so degraded that we cannot discover in it the instinct\nto satisfy both its material and its moral needs. The first and most\nobvious difference between races lies in the various ways in which the\ntwo sides of this instinct are balanced. Among the most primitive\npeoples they are never of equal intensity. In some, the sense of the\nphysical need is uppermost, in others, the tendency to contemplation.\nThus the brutish hordes of the yellow race seem to be dominated by the\nneeds of the body, though they are not quite without gleams of a\nspiritual world. On the other hand to most of the negro tribes that have\nreached the same stage of development, action is less than thought, and\nthe imagination gives a higher value to the things unseen than those\nthat can be handled. From the point of view of civilization, I do not\nregard this as a reason for placing the negroes on a higher level; for\nthe experience of centuries shows that they are no more capable of being\ncivilized than the others. Ages have passed without their doing anything\nto improve their condition; they are all equally powerless to mingle act\nand idea in sufficient strength to burst their prison walls and emerge\nfrom their degradation. But even in the lowest stages of human progress\nI always find this twofold stream of instinct, in which now one, now the\nother current predominates; and I will try to trace its path as I go up\nthe scale of civilization.\n\nAbove the Samoyedes, as above some of the Polynesian negroes, come the\ntribes that are not quite content with a hut made of branches or with\nforce as the only social relation, but desire something better. These\ntribes are raised one step above absolute barbarism. If they belong to\nthose races to whom action is more than thought, we shall see them\nimproving their tools, their arms, and their ornaments, setting up a\ngovernment in which the warriors are more important than the priests,\ndeveloping ideas of exchange, and already showing a fair aptitude for\ncommerce. Their wars will still be cruel, but will tend more and more to\nbecome mere pillaging expeditions; in fact, material comfort and\nphysical enjoyment will be the main aim of the people. I find this\npicture realized in many of the Mongolian tribes; also, in a higher\nform, among the Quichuas and Aymaras of Peru. The opposite condition,\ninvolving a greater detachment from mere bodily needs, will be found\namong the Dahomeys of West Africa, and the Kaffirs.\n\nI now continue the journey upwards, and leave the groups in which the\nsocial system is not strong enough to impose itself over a large\npopulation, even after a fusion of blood. I pass to those in which the\nracial elements are so strong that they grip fast everything that comes\nwithin their reach, and draw it into themselves; they found over immense\ntracts of territory a supreme dominion resting on a basis of ideas and\nactions that are more or less perfectly co-ordinated. For the first time\nwe have reached what can be called a _civilization_. The same internal\ndifferences that I brought out in the first two stages appear in the\nthird; they are in fact far more marked than before, as it is only in\nthis third stage that their effects are of any real importance. From the\nmoment when an assemblage of men, which began as a mere tribe, has so\nwidened the horizon of its social relations as to merit the name of a\n_people_, we see one of the two currents of instinct, the material and\nthe intellectual, flowing with greater force than before, according as\nthe separate groups, now fused together, were originally borne along by\none or the other. Thus, different results will follow, and different\nqualities of a nation will come to the surface, according as the power\nof thought or that of action is dominant. We may use here the Hindu\nsymbolism, and represent what I call the \u201cintellectual current\u201d by\nPrakriti, the female principle, and the \u201cmaterial current\u201d by Purusha,\nthe male principle. There is, of course, no blame or praise attaching to\neither of these phrases; they merely imply that the one principle is\nfertilized by the other.[40]\n\nFurther, we can see, at some periods of a people\u2019s existence, a strong\noscillation between the two principles, one of which alternately\nprevails over the other. These changes depend on the mingling of blood\nthat inevitably takes place at various times. Their consequences are\nvery important, and sensibly alter the character of the civilization by\nimpairing its stability.\n\nI can thus divide peoples into two classes, as they come predominantly\nunder the action of one or other of these currents; though the division\nis, of course, in no way absolute. At the head of the \u201cmale\u201d category I\nput the Chinese; the Hindus being the prototype of the opposite class.\n\nAfter the Chinese come most of the peoples of ancient Italy, the Romans\nof the Early Republic, and the Germanic tribes. In the opposite camp are\nranged the nations of Egypt and Assyria. They take their place behind\nthe men of Hindustan.\n\nWhen we follow the nations down the ages, we find that the civilization\nof nearly all of them has been modified by their oscillation between the\ntwo principles. The peoples of Northern China were at first almost\nentirely materialistic. By a gradual fusion with tribes of different\nblood, especially those in the Yunnan, their outlook became less purely\nutilitarian. The reason why this development has been arrested, or at\nleast has been very slow, for centuries past, is because the \u201cmale\u201d\nconstituents of the population are far greater in quantity than the\nslight \u201cfemale\u201d element in its blood.\n\nIn Northern Europe the materialistic strain, contributed by the best of\nthe Germanic tribes, has been continually strengthened by the influx of\nCelts and Slavs. But as the white peoples drifted more and more towards\nthe south, the male influences gradually lost their force and were\nabsorbed by an excess of female elements, which finally triumphed. We\nmust allow some exceptions to this, for example in Piedmont and Northern\nSpain.\n\nPassing now to the other division, we see that the Hindus have in a high\ndegree the feeling of the supernatural, that they are more given to\nmeditation than to action. As their earliest conquests brought them\nmainly into contact with races organized along the same lines as\nthemselves, the male principle could not be sufficiently developed among\nthem. In such an environment their civilization was not able to advance\non the material side as it had on the intellectual. We may contrast the\nancient Romans, who were naturally materialistic, and only ceased to be\nso after a complete fusion with Greeks, Africans, and Orientals had\nchanged their original nature and given them a totally new temperament.\nThe internal development of the Greeks resembled that of the Hindus.\n\nI conclude from such facts as these that every human activity, moral or\nintellectual, has its original source in one or other of these two\ncurrents, \u201cmale\u201d or \u201cfemale\u201d; and only the races which have one of these\nelements in abundance (without, of course, being quite destitute of the\nother) can reach, in their social life, a satisfactory stage of culture,\nand so attain to civilization.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IX\n     DEFINITION OF THE WORD \u201cCIVILIZATION\u201d (_continued_); DIFFERENT\nCHARACTERISTICS OF CIVILIZED SOCIETIES; OUR CIVILIZATION IS NOT SUPERIOR\n                    TO THOSE WHICH HAVE GONE BEFORE\n\n\nWhen a nation, belonging to either the male or female series, has the\ncivilizing instinct so strongly that it can impose its laws on vast\nmultitudes of men; when it is so fortunate as to be able to satisfy\ntheir inner needs, and appeal to their hearts as well as their heads;\nfrom this moment a culture is brought into being. This general appeal is\nthe essential note of the civilizing instinct, and its greatest glory.\nThis alone makes it a living and active force. The interests of\nindividuals only flourish in isolation; and social life always tends, to\nsome extent, to mutilate them. For a system of ideas to be really\nfruitful and convincing, it must suit the particular ways of thought and\nfeeling current among the people to whom it is offered.\n\nWhen some special point of view is accepted by the mass of a people as\nthe basis of their legislation, it is really because it fulfils, in the\nmain, their most cherished desires. The male nations look principally\nfor material well-being, the female nations are more taken up with the\nneeds of the imagination; but, I repeat, as soon as the multitudes enrol\nthemselves under a banner, or\u2014to speak more exactly\u2014as soon as a\nparticular form of administration is accepted, a civilization is born.\n\nAnother invariable mark of civilization is the need that is felt for\nstability. This follows immediately from what I have said above; for the\nmoment that men have admitted, as a community, that some special\nprinciple is to govern and unite them, and have consented to make\nindividual sacrifices to bring this about, their first impulse is to\nrespect the governing principle\u2014as much for what it brings as for what\nit demands\u2014and to declare it unshakable. The purer a race keeps its\nblood, the less will its social foundations be liable to attack; for the\ngeneral way of thought will remain the same. Yet the desire for\nstability cannot be entirely satisfied for long. The admixture of blood\nwill be followed by some modifications in the fundamental ideas of the\npeople, and these again by an itch for change in the building itself.\nSuch change will sometimes mean real progress, especially in the dawn of\na civilization, when the governing principle is usually rigid and\nabsolute, owing to the exclusive predominance of some single race.\nLater, the tinkering will become incessant, as the mass is more\nheterogeneous and loses its singleness of aim; and the community will\nnot always be able to congratulate itself on the result. So long,\nhowever, as it remains under the guidance of the original impulse, it\nwill not cease, while holding fast to the idea of bettering its\ncondition, to follow a chimera of stability. Fickle, unstable, changing\nevery hour, it yet thinks itself eternal, and marches on, as towards\nsome goal in Paradise. It clings to the doctrine (even while continually\ndenying it in practice) that one of the chief marks of civilization is\nto borrow a part of God\u2019s immutability for the profit of man. When the\nlikeness obviously does not exist, it takes courage, and consoles itself\nby the conviction that soon, at any rate, it will attain to the Divine\nattribute.\n\nBy the side of stability, and the co-operation of individual interests,\nwhich touch each other without being destroyed, we must put a third and\na fourth characteristic of civilization, sociability, and the hatred of\nviolence\u2014in other words the demand that the head, and not the fists,\nshall be used for self-defence.\n\nThese last two features are the source of all mental improvement, and so\nof all material progress; it is to these especially that we look for the\nevidence as to whether a society is advanced or not.[41]\n\nI think I may now sum up my view of civilization by defining it as _a\nstate of relative stability, where the mass of men try to satisfy their\nwants by peaceful means, and are refined in their conduct and\nintelligence_.\n\nIn this formula are comprised all the peoples whom I have mentioned up\nto now as being civilized, whether they belong to one or the other\nclass. Assuming that the conditions are fulfilled, we must now inquire\nwhether all civilizations are equal. I think not. The social needs of\nthe chief peoples are not felt with the same intensity or directed\ntowards the same objects; thus their conduct and intelligence will show\ngreat differences in kind, as well as in degree. What are the material\nneeds of the Hindu? Rice and butter for his food, and a linen cloth for\nhis raiment. We may certainly be tempted to ascribe this simplicity to\nconditions of climate. But the Tibetans live in a very severe climate,\nand are yet most remarkable for their abstinence. The main interest of\nboth these peoples is in their religious and philosophical development,\nin providing for the very insistent demands of the mind and the spirit.\nThus there is no balance kept between the male and female principles.\nThe scale is too heavily weighted on the intellectual side, the\nconsequence being that almost all the work done under this civilization\nis exclusively devoted to the one end, to the detriment of the other.\nHuge monuments, mountains of stone, are chiselled and set up, at a cost\nof toil and effort that staggers the imagination. Colossal buildings\ncover the ground\u2014and with what object? to honour the gods. Nothing is\nmade for man\u2014except perhaps the tombs. By the side of the marvels\nproduced by the sculptor, literature, with no less vigour, creates her\nmasterpieces. The theology, the metaphysics, are as varied as they are\nsubtle and ingenious, and man\u2019s thought goes down, without flinching,\ninto the immeasurable abyss. In lyric poetry feminine civilization is\nthe pride of humanity.\n\nBut when I pass from the kingdom of ideals and visions to that of the\nuseful inventions, and the theoretical sciences on which they rest, I\nfall at once from the heights into the depths, and the brilliant day\ngives place to night. Useful discoveries are rare; the few that appear\nare petty and sterile; the power of observation practically does not\nexist. While the Chinese were continually inventing, the Hindus\nconceived a few ideas, which they did not take the trouble to work out.\nAgain the Greeks had, as we know from their literature, many scientific\nnotions that were unworthy of them; while the Romans, after passing the\nculminating-point in their history, could not advance very far, although\nthey did more than the Greeks; for the mixture of Asiatic blood, that\nabsorbed them with startling rapidity, denied them the qualities which\nare indispensable for a patient investigation of nature. Yet their\nadministrative genius, their legislation, and the useful buildings that\nwere set up throughout the Empire are a sufficient witness to the\npositive nature of their social ideas at a certain period; they prove\nthat if Southern Europe had not been so quickly covered by the continual\nstream of colonists from Asia and Africa, positive science would have\nwon the day, and the Germanic pioneers would, in consequence, have lost\na few of their laurels.\n\nThe conquerors of the fifth century brought into Europe a spirit of the\nsame order as that of the Chinese, but with very different powers. It\nwas equipped, to a far greater extent, with the feminine qualities, and\nunited the two motive-forces far more harmoniously. Wherever this branch\nof the human family was dominant, the utilitarian tendencies, though in\na nobler form, are unmistakable. In England, North America, Holland, and\nHanover, they override the other instincts of the people. It is the same\nin Belgium, and also in the north of France, where there is always a\nwonderfully quick comprehension of anything with a practical bearing. As\nwe go further south these tendencies become weaker. This is not due to\nthe fiercer action of the sun, for the Catalans and the Piedmontese\ncertainly live in a hotter climate than the men of Provence or\nBas-Languedoc; the sole cause is the influence of blood.\n\nThe female or feminized races occupy the greater part of the globe, and,\nin particular, the greater part of Europe. With the exception of the\nTeutonic group and some of the Slavs, all the races in our part of the\nworld have the material instincts only in a slight degree; they have\nalready played their parts in former ages and cannot begin again. The\nmasses, in their infinite gradations from Gaul to Celtiberian, from\nCeltiberian to the nameless mixture of Italians and other Latin races,\nform a descending scale, so far as the chief powers (though not all the\npowers) of the male principle are concerned.\n\nOur civilization has been created by the mingling of the Germanic tribes\nwith the races of the ancient world, the union, that is to say, of\npre-eminently male groups with races and fragments of races clinging to\nthe decayed remnants of the ancient ideas. The richness, variety, and\nfertility of invention for which we honour our modern societies, are the\nnatural, and more or less successful, result of the maimed and disparate\nelements which our Germanic ancestors instinctively knew how to use,\ntemper, and disguise.\n\nOur own kind of culture has two general marks, wherever it is found; it\nhas been touched, however superficially, by the Germanic element, and it\nis Christian. This second characteristic (to repeat what I have said\nalready) is more marked than the other, and leaps first to the eye,\nbecause it is an outward feature of our modern State, a sort of varnish\non its surface; but it is not absolutely essential, as many nations are\nChristian\u2014and still more might become Christian\u2014without forming a part\nof our circle of civilization. The first characteristic is, on the\ncontrary, positive and decisive. Where the Germanic element has never\npenetrated, our special kind of civilization does not exist.\n\nThis naturally brings me to the question whether we can call our\nEuropean societies entirely civilized; whether the ideas and actions\nthat appear on the surface have the roots of their being deep down in\nthe mass of the people, and therefore whether their effects correspond\nwith the instincts of the greatest number. This leads to a further\nquestion: do the lower strata of our populations think and act in\naccordance with what we call European civilization?\n\nMany have admired, and with good reason, the extraordinary unity of\nideas and views that guided the whole body of citizens in the Greek\nstates of the best period. The conclusions on every essential point were\noften hostile to each other; but they all derived from the same source.\nIn politics, some wanted more or less democracy, some more or less\noligarchy. In religion, some chose to worship the Eleusinian Demeter,\nothers Athene Parthenos. As a matter of literary taste, \u00c6schylus might\nbe preferred to Sophocles, Alc\u00e6us to Pindar. But, at bottom, the ideas\ndiscussed were all such as we might call national; the disputes turned\nmerely on points of proportion. The same was the case at Rome, before\nthe Punic Wars; the civilization of the country was uniform and\nunquestioned. It reached the slave through the master; all shared in it\nto a different extent, but none shared in any other.\n\nFrom the time of the Punic Wars among the Romans, and from that of\nPericles, and especially of Philip, among the Greeks, this uniformity\ntended more and more to break down. The mixture of nations brought with\nit a mixture of civilizations. The result was a very complex and learned\nsociety, with a culture far more refined than before. But it had one\nstriking disadvantage; both in Italy and in Hellas, it existed merely\nfor the upper classes, the lower strata being left quite ignorant of its\nnature, its merits, and its aims. Roman civilization after the great\nAsiatic wars was, no doubt, a powerful manifestation of human genius;\nbut it really embraced none but the Greek rhetoricians who supplied its\nphilosophical basis, the Syrian lawyers who built up for it an atheistic\nlegal system, the rich men who were engaged in public administration or\nmoney-making, and finally the leisured voluptuaries who did nothing at\nall. By the masses it was, at all times, merely tolerated. The peoples\nof Europe understood nothing of its Asiatic and African elements, those\nof Egypt had no better idea of what it brought them from Gaul and Spain,\nthose of Numidia had no appreciation of what came to them from the rest\nof the world. Thus, below what we might call the social classes, lived\ninnumerable multitudes who had a different civilization from that of the\nofficial world, or were not civilized at all. Only the minority of the\nRoman people held the secret, and attached any importance to it. We have\nhere the example of a civilization that is accepted and dominant, no\nlonger through the convictions of the peoples who live under it, but by\ntheir exhaustion, their weakness, and their indifference.\n\nIn China we find the exact contrary. The territory is of course immense,\nbut from one end to the other there is the same spirit among the native\nChinese\u2014I leave the rest out of account\u2014and the same grasp of their\ncivilization. Whatever its principles may be, whether we approve of its\naims or not, we must admit that the part played by the masses in their\ncivilization shows how well they understand it. The reason is not that\nthe country is free in our sense, that a democratic feeling of rivalry\nimpels all to do their best in order to secure a position guaranteed\nthem by law. Not at all; I am not trying to paint an ideal picture.\nPeasants and middle classes alike have little hope, in the Middle\nKingdom at any rate, of rising by sheer force of merit. In this part of\nthe Empire, in spite of the official promises with regard to the system\nof examinations by which the public services are filled, no one doubts\nthat the places are all reserved for members of the official families,\nand that the decision of the professors is often affected more by money\nthan by scholarship;[42] but though shipwrecked ambitions may bewail the\nevils of the system, they do not imagine that there could be a better\none, and the existing state of things is the object of unshakable\nadmiration to the whole people.\n\nEducation in China is remarkably general and widespread; it extends to\nclasses considerably below those which, in France, might conceivably\nfeel the want of it. The cheapness of books,[43] the number and the low\nfees of the schools, bring a certain measure of education within the\nreach of everybody. The aims and spirit of the laws are generally well\nunderstood, and the government is proud of having made legal knowledge\naccessible to all. There is a strong instinct of repulsion against\nradical changes in the Government. A very trustworthy critic on this\npoint, Mr. John F. Davis, the British Commissioner in China, who has not\nonly lived in Canton but has studied its affairs with the closest\napplication, says that the Chinese are a people whose history does not\nshow a single attempt at a social revolution, or any alteration in the\noutward forms of power. In his opinion, they are best described as \u201ca\nnation of steady conservatives.\u201d\n\nThe contrast is very striking, when we turn to the civilization of the\nRoman world, where changes of government followed each other with\nstartling rapidity right up to the coming of the northern peoples.\nEverywhere in this great society, and at every time, we can find\npopulations so detached from the existing order as to be ready for the\nwildest experiments. Nothing was left untried in this long period, no\nprinciple respected. Property, religion, the family were all called in\nquestion, and many, both in the North and South, were inclined to put\nthe novel theories into practice. Absolutely nothing in the Gr\u00e6co-Roman\nworld rested on a solid foundation, not even the unity of the Empire, so\nnecessary one would think for the general safety. Further, it was not\nonly the armies, with their hosts of improvised C\u00e6sars, who were\ncontinually battering at this Palladium of society; the emperors\nthemselves, beginning with Diocletian, had so little belief in the\nmonarchy, that they established of their own accord a division of power.\nAt last there were four rulers at once. Not a single institution, not a\nsingle principle, was fixed, in this unhappy society, which had no\nbetter reason for continuing to exist than the physical impossibility of\ndeciding on which rock it should founder; until the moment came when it\nwas crushed in the vigorous arms of the North, and forced at last to\nbecome something definite.\n\nThus we find a complete opposition between these two great societies,\nthe Celestial and the Roman Empires. To the civilization of Eastern Asia\nI will add that of the Brahmans, which is also of extraordinary strength\nand universality. If in China every one, or nearly every one, has\nreached a certain level of knowledge, the same is the case among the\nHindus. Each man, according to his caste, shares in a spirit that has\nlasted for ages, and knows exactly what he ought to learn, think, and\nbelieve. Among the Buddhists of Tibet and other parts of Upper Asia,\nnothing is rarer than a peasant who cannot read. Every one has similar\nconvictions on the important matters of life.\n\nDo we find the same uniformity among Europeans? The question is not\nworth asking. The Gr\u00e6co-Roman civilization has no definitely marked\ncolour, either throughout the nations as a whole, or even within the\nsame people. I need not speak of Russia or most of the Austrian States;\nthe proof would be too easy. But consider Germany or Italy (especially\nSouth Italy); Spain shows a similar picture, though in fainter lines;\nFrance is in the same position as Spain.\n\nTake the case of France. I will not confine myself to the fact, which\nalways strikes the most superficial observer, that between Paris and the\nrest of France there is an impassable gulf, and that at the very gates\nof the capital a new nation begins, which is quite different from that\nliving within the walls. On this point there is no room for doubt, and\nthose who base their conclusions, as to the unity of ideas and the\nfusion of blood, on the formal unity of our Government, are under a\ngreat illusion.\n\nNot a single social law or root-principle of civilization is understood\nin the same way in all our departments. I do not refer merely to the\npeoples of Normandy, Brittany, Anjou, Limousin, Gascony, and Provence;\nevery one knows how little one is like the other, and how they vary in\ntheir opinions. The important point is that, while in China, Tibet, and\nIndia the ideas essential to the maintenance of civilization are\nfamiliar to all classes, this is not at all the case among ourselves.\nThe most elementary and accessible facts are sealed mysteries to most of\nour rural populations, who are absolutely indifferent to them; for\nusually they can neither read nor write, and have no wish to learn. They\ncannot see the use of such knowledge, nor the possibility of applying\nit. In such a matter, I put no trust in the promises of the law, or the\nfine show made by institutions, but rather in what I have seen for\nmyself, and in the reports of careful observers. Different governments\nhave made the most praiseworthy attempts to raise the peasants from\ntheir ignorance; not only are the children given every opportunity for\nbeing educated in their villages, but even adults, who are made\nconscripts at twenty, find in the regimental schools an excellent system\nof instruction in the most necessary subjects. Yet, in spite of these\nprovisions, and the fatherly anxiety of the Government, in spite of the\n_compelle intrare_[44] which it is continually dinning into the ears of\nits agents, the agricultural classes learn nothing whatever. Like all\nthose who have lived in the provinces, I have seen how parents never\nsend their children to school without obvious reluctance, how they\nregard the hours spent there as a mere waste of time, how they withdraw\nthem at once on the slightest pretext and never allow the compulsory\nnumber of years to be extended. Once he leaves school, the young man\u2019s\nfirst duty is to forget what he has learnt. This is, to a certain\nextent, a point of honour with him; and his example is followed by the\ndischarged soldiers, who, in many parts of France, are not only ashamed\nof having learnt to read and write, but even affect to forget their own\nlanguage, and often succeed in doing so. Hence I could more easily\napprove all the generous efforts that have been so fruitlessly made to\neducate our rural populations, if I were not convinced that the\nknowledge put before them is quite unsuitable, and that at the root of\ntheir apparent indifference there is a feeling of invincible hostility\nto our civilization. One proof lies in their attitude of passive\nresistance; but the spectre of another and more convincing argument\nappears before me, as soon as I see any instance of this obstinacy being\novercome, under apparently favourable circumstances. In some respects\nthe attempts at education are succeeding better than before. In our\neastern departments and the great manufacturing towns there are many\nworkmen who learn of their own accord to read and write. They live in a\ncircle where such knowledge is obviously useful. But as soon as they\nhave a sufficient grasp of the rudiments, how do they use them?\nGenerally as a means of acquiring ideas and feelings which are now no\nlonger instinctively, but actively, opposed to the social order. The\nonly exception is to be found in the agricultural and even the\nindustrial population of the North-west, where knowledge up to an\nelementary point is far more widespread than in any other part, and\nwhere it is not only retained after the school time is over, but is\nusually made to serve a good end. As these populations have much more\naffinity than the others to the Germanic race, I am not surprised at the\nresult. We see the same phenomenon in Belgium and the Netherlands.\n\nIf we go on to consider the fundamental beliefs and opinions of the\npeople, the difference becomes still more marked. With regard to the\nbeliefs we have to congratulate the Christian religion on not being\nexclusive or making its dogmas too narrow. If it had, it would have\nstruck some very dangerous shoals. The bishops and the clergy have to\nstruggle, as they have done for these five, ten, fifteen centuries,\nagainst the stream of hereditary tendencies and prejudices, which are\nthe more formidable as they are hardly even admitted, and so can neither\nbe fought nor conquered. There is no enlightened priest who does not\nknow, after his mission-work in the villages, the deep cunning with\nwhich even the religious peasant will continue to cherish, in his inmost\nheart, some traditional idea that comes to the surface only at rare\nmoments, in spite of himself. His complete confidence in his parish\npriest just stops short of what we might call his secret religion. Does\nhe mention it to him? he denies it, will admit no discussion, and will\nnot budge an inch from his convictions. This is the reason of the\ntaciturnity that, in every province, is the main attitude of the peasant\nin face of the middle classes; it raises too an insuperable barrier\nbetween him and even the most popular landowners in his canton. With\nthis view of civilization on the part of the majority of the people who\nare supposed to be most deeply attached to it, I can well believe that\nan approximate estimate of ten millions within our circle of culture,\nand twenty-six millions outside it, would be, if anything, an\nunder-statement.\n\nIf our rural populations were merely brutal and ignorant, we might not\ntake much notice of this cleavage, but console ourselves with the\ndelusive hope of gradually winning them over, and absorbing them in the\nmultitudes that are already civilized. But these peasants are like\ncertain savage tribes: at first sight they seem brutish and unthinking,\nfor they are outwardly self-effacing and humble. But if one digs even a\nlittle beneath the surface, into their real life, one finds that their\nisolation is voluntary, and comes from no feeling of weakness. Their\nlikes and dislikes are not a matter of chance; everything obeys a\nlogical sequence of definite ideas. When I spoke just now of religion, I\nmight also have pointed out how very far removed our moral doctrines are\nfrom those of the peasants,[45] what a different sense they give to the\nword _delicacy_, how obstinately they cling to their custom of regarding\nevery one who is not of peasant stock in the same way as the men of\nremote antiquity viewed the foreigner. It is true they do not murder\nhim, thanks to the strange and mysterious terror inspired by laws they\nhave not themselves made; but they do not conceal their hatred and\ndistrust of him, and they take great pleasure in annoying him, if they\ncan do it without risk. Does this mean that they are ill-natured? No,\nnot among themselves\u2014we may continually see them doing each other little\nkindnesses. They simply look on themselves as a race apart, a race (if\nwe may believe them) which is weak and oppressed, and obliged to deal\ncrookedly, but which also keeps its stiff-necked and contemptuous pride.\nIn some of our provinces the workman thinks himself of far better blood\nand older stock than his former master. Family pride, in some of the\npeasants, is at least equal to that of the nobility of the Middle\nAges.[46]\n\nWe cannot doubt it; the lower strata of the French people have very\nlittle in common with the surface. They form an abyss over which\ncivilization is suspended, and the deep stagnant waters, sleeping at the\nbottom of the gulf, will one day show their power of dissolving all that\ncomes in their way. The most tragic crises of her history have deluged\nthe country with blood, without the agricultural population playing any\npart except that which was forced on it. Where its immediate interests\nwere not engaged, it let the storms pass by without troubling itself in\nthe least. Those who are astonished and scandalized by such callousness\nsay that the peasant is essentially immoral\u2014which is both unjust and\nuntrue. The peasants look on us almost in the light of enemies. They\nunderstand nothing of our civilization, they share in it unwillingly,\nand think themselves justified in profiting, as far as they can, by its\nmisfortunes. If we put aside this antagonism, which is sometimes active\nbut generally inert, we need not hesitate to allow them some high moral\nqualities, however strangely these may, at times, be manifested.\n\nI may apply to the whole of Europe what I have just said of France, and\nconclude that modern civilization includes far more than it absorbs; in\nthis it resembles the Roman Empire. Hence one cannot be confident that\nour state of society will last; and I see a clear proof of this in the\nsmallness of its hold even over the classes raised a little above the\ncountry population. Our civilization may be compared to the temporary\nislands thrown up in the sea by submarine volcanoes. Exposed as they are\nto the destructive action of the currents, and robbed of the forces that\nfirst kept them in position, they will one day break up, and their\nfragments will be hurled into the gulf of the all-conquering waves. It\nis a sad end, and one which many noble races before ourselves have had\nto meet. The blow cannot be turned aside; it is inevitable. The wise man\nmay see it coming, but can do nothing more. The most consummate\nstatesmanship is not able for one moment to counteract the immutable\nlaws of the world.\n\nBut though thus unknown, despised, or hated by the majority of those who\nlive under its shadow, our civilization is yet one of the most glorious\nmonuments ever erected by the genius of man. It is certainly not\ndistinguished by its power of invention; but putting this aside, we may\nsay that it has greatly developed the capacity for understanding, and so\nfor conquest. To mistake nothing is to take everything. If it has not\nfounded the \u201cexact sciences,\u201d it has at least made them exact, and freed\nthem from errors to which, curiously enough, they were more liable than\nany other branch of knowledge. Thanks to its discoveries, it knows the\nmaterial world better than all the societies which have gone before. It\nhas guessed some of its chief laws, it can describe and explain them,\nand borrow from them a marvellous strength that passes a hundredfold the\nstrength of a man. Little by little, by a skilful use of induction, it\nhas reconstructed large periods of history of which the ancients never\nsuspected the existence. The further we are from primitive times, the\nmore clearly can we see them, and penetrate their mysteries. This is a\ngreat point of superiority, and one which we must, in fairness, allow to\nour civilization.\n\nBut when we have admitted this, should we be right in concluding, as is\nusually done, without reflexion, that it is superior to all the\ncivilizations that have ever existed, and to all those that exist at the\npresent day? Yes and no. Yes, because the extreme diversity of its\nelements allows it to rest on a powerful basis of comparison and\nanalysis, and so to assimilate at once almost anything; yes, because\nthis power of choice is favourable to its development in many different\ndirections; yes again, because, thanks to the impulse of the Germanic\nelement (which is too materialistic to be a destructive force) it has\nmade itself a morality, the wise prescriptions of which were generally\nunknown before. If, however, we carry this idea of its greatness so far\nas to regard it as having an absolute and unqualified superiority, then\nI say no, the simple fact being that it excels in practically nothing\nwhatever.\n\nIn politics, we see it in bondage to the continual change brought about\nby the different requirements of the races which it includes. In\nEngland, Holland, Naples, and Russia, its principles are still fairly\nstable, because the populations are more homogeneous, or at any rate\nform groups of the same kind, with similar instincts. But everywhere\nelse, especially in France, Central Italy, and Germany\u2014where variations\nof race are infinite\u2014theories of government can never rise to the rank\nof accepted truths, and political science is a matter of continual\nexperiment. As our civilization is unable to have any sure confidence in\nitself, it is without the stability that is one of the most important\nqualities mentioned in my definition. This weakness is to be found\nneither in the Buddhist and Brahman societies, nor in the Celestial\nEmpire; and these civilizations have in this respect an advantage over\nours. The whole people is at one in its political beliefs. When there is\na wise government, and the ancient institutions are bearing good fruit,\nevery one is glad. When they are in clumsy hands, and injure the\ncommonwealth, they are pitied by the citizens as a man pities himself;\nbut they never cease to be respected. There is sometimes a desire to\npurify them, but never to sweep them away or replace them by others. It\ndoes not need very keen eyes to see here a guarantee of long life which\nour civilization is very far from possessing.\n\nIn art, our inferiority to India, as well as to Egypt, Greece, and\nAmerica, is very marked. Neither in sublimity nor beauty have we\nanything to compare with the masterpieces of antiquity. When our day has\ndrawn to its close, and the ruins of our towns and monuments cover the\nface of the land, the traveller will discover nothing, in the forests\nand marshes that will skirt the Thames, the Seine, and the Rhine, to\nrival the gorgeous ruins of Phil\u00e6, Nineveh, Athens, Salsette, and the\nvalley of Tenochtitlan. If future ages have something to learn from us\nin the way of positive science, this is not the case with poetry, as is\nclearly proved by the despairing admiration that we so justly feel for\nthe intellectual wonders of foreign civilizations.\n\nSo far as the refinement of manners is concerned, we have obviously\nchanged for the worse. This is shown by our own past history; there were\nperiods when luxury, elegance, and sumptuousness were understood far\nbetter and practised on a far more lavish scale than to-day. Pleasure\nwas certainly confined to a smaller number. Comparatively few were in\nwhat we should call a state of _well-being_. On the other hand, if we\nadmit (as we must) that refinement of manners elevates the minds of the\nmultitudes who look on, as well as ennobling the life of a few favoured\nindividuals, that it spreads a varnish of beauty and grandeur over the\nwhole country, and that these become the common inheritance of all\u2014then\nour civilization, which is essentially petty on its external side,\ncannot be compared to its rivals.\n\nI may add, finally, that the active element distinguishing any\ncivilization is identical with the most striking quality, whatever it\nmay be, of the dominant race. The civilization is modified and\ntransformed according to the changes undergone by this race, and when\nthe race itself has disappeared, carries on for some time the impulse\noriginally received from it. Thus the kind of order kept in any society\nis the best index to the special capacities of the people and to the\nstage of progress to which they have attained: it is the clearest mirror\nin which their individuality can be reflected.\n\nI see that the long digression, into which I have strayed, has carried\nme further than I expected. I do not regret it, for it has enabled me to\nvent certain ideas that the reader might well keep in mind. But it is\nnow time to return to the main course of my argument, the chain of which\nis still far from being complete.\n\nI established first that the life or death of societies was the result\nof internal causes. I have said what these causes are, and described\ntheir essential nature, in order that they may be more easily\nrecognized. I have shown that they are generally referred to a wrong\nsource; and in looking for some sign that could always distinguish them,\nand indicate their presence, I found it in the capacity to create a\ncivilization. As it seemed impossible to discover a clear conception of\nthis term, it was necessary to define it, as I have done. My next step\nmust be to study the natural and unvarying phenomenon which I have\nidentified as the latent cause of the life and death of societies. This,\nas I have said, consists in the relative worth of the different races.\nLogic requires me to make clear at once what I understand by the word\n_race_. This will be the subject of the following chapter.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER X\n    SOME ANTHROPOLOGISTS REGARD MAN AS HAVING A MULTIPLE ORIGIN[47]\n\n\nWe must first discuss the word _race_ in its physiological sense.\n\nA good many observers, who judge by first impressions and so take\nextreme views, assert that there are such radical and essential\ndifferences between human families that one must refuse them any\nidentity of origin.[48] The writers who adhere to such a notion assume\nmany other genealogies by the side of that from Adam. To them there is\nno original unity in the species, or rather there is no single species;\nthere are three or four, or even more, which produce perfectly distinct\ntypes, and these again have united to form hybrids.\n\nThe supporters of this theory easily win belief by citing the clear and\nstriking differences between certain human groups. When we see before us\na man with a yellowish skin, scanty hair and beard, a large face, a\npyramidal skull, small stature, thick-set limbs, and slanting eyes with\nthe skin of the eyelids turned so much outwards that the eye will hardly\nopen[49]\u2014we recognize a very well-marked type, the main features of\nwhich it is easy to bear in mind.\n\nFrom him we turn to another\u2014a negro from the West Coast of Africa, tall,\nstrong-looking, with thick-set limbs and a tendency to fat. His colour\nis no longer yellowish, but entirely black; his hair no longer thin and\nwiry, but thick, coarse, woolly, and luxuriant; his lower jaw juts out,\nthe shape of the skull is what is known as _prognathous_. \u201cThe long\nbones stand out, the front of the tibia and the fibula are more convex\nthan in a European, the calves are very high and reach above the knee;\nthe feet are quite flat, and the heel-bone, instead of being arched, is\nalmost in a straight line with the other bones of the foot, which is\nvery large. The hand is similarly formed.\u201d\n\nWhen we look for a moment at an individual of this type, we are\ninvoluntarily reminded of the structure of the monkey, and are inclined\nto admit that the negro races of West Africa come from a stock that has\nnothing in common, except the human form, with the Mongolian.\n\nWe come next to tribes whose appearance is still less flattering to the\nself-love of mankind than that of the Congo negro. Oceania has the\nspecial privilege of providing the most ugly, degraded, and repulsive\nspecimens of the race, which seem to have been created with the express\npurpose of forming a link between man and the brute pure and simple. By\nthe side of many Australian tribes, the African negro himself assumes a\nvalue and dignity, and seems to derive from a nobler source. In many of\nthe wretched inhabitants of this New World, the size of the head, the\nextreme thinness of the limbs, the famished look of the body, are\nabsolutely hideous. The hair is flat or wavy, and generally woolly, the\nflesh is black on a foundation of grey.\n\nWhen, after examining these types, taken from all the quarters of the\nglobe, we finally come back to the inhabitants of Europe, and of South\nand West Asia, we find them so superior in beauty, in just proportion of\nlimb and regularity of feature, that we are at once tempted to accept\nthe conclusions of those who assert the multiplicity of races. Not only\nare these peoples more beautiful than the rest of mankind, which is, I\nconfess, a pestilent congregation of ugliness;[50] not only have they\nhad the glory of giving the world such admirable types as a Venus, an\nApollo, a Farnese Hercules; but also there is a visible hierarchy of\nbeauty established from ancient times even among themselves, and in this\nnatural aristocracy the Europeans are the most eminent, by their grace\nof outline and strength of muscular developement. The most reasonable\nview appears to be that the families into which man is divided are as\ndistinct as are animals of different species. Such was the conclusion\ndrawn from simple observation, and so long as only general facts were in\nquestion, it seemed irrefutable.\n\nCamper was one of the first to reduce these observations to some kind of\nsystem. He was no longer satisfied with merely superficial evidence, but\nwished to give his proofs a mathematical foundation; he tried to define\nanatomically the differences between races. He succeeded in establishing\na strict method that left no room for doubt, and his views gained the\nnumerical accuracy without which there can be no science. His method was\nto take the front part of the skull and measure the inclination of the\nprofile by means of two lines which he called the _facial lines_. Their\nintersection formed an angle, the size of which gave the degree of\nelevation attained by the race to which the skull belonged. One of these\nlines connected the base of the nose with the orifice of the ear; the\nother was tangential to the most prominent part of the forehead and the\njut of the upper jaw. On the basis of the angle thus formed, he\nconstructed a scale including not only man but all kinds of animals. At\nthe top stood the European; and the more acute the angle, the further\nwas the distance from the type which, according to Camper, was the most\nperfect. Thus birds and fishes showed smaller angles than the various\nmammals. A certain kind of ape reached 42\u00b0, and even 50\u00b0. Then came the\nheads of the African negro and the Kalmuck, which touched 70\u00b0. The\nEuropean stood at 80\u00b0, and, to quote the inventor\u2019s own words, which are\nvery flattering to our own type, \u201cOn this difference of 10\u00b0 the superior\nbeauty of the European, what one might call his \u2018comparative beauty,\u2019\ndepends; the \u2018absolute beauty\u2019 that is so striking in some of the works\nof ancient sculpture, as in the head of Apollo and the Medusa of\nSosicles, is the result of a still greater angle, amounting in this\ninstance to 100\u00b0.\u201d[51]\n\nThis method was attractive by its simplicity. Unhappily, the facts are\nagainst it, as against so many systems. By a series of accurate\nobservations, Owen showed that, in the case of monkeys, Camper had\nstudied the skulls only of the young animals; but since, in the adults,\nthe growth of the teeth and jaws, and the development of the zygomatic\narch, were not accompanied by a corresponding enlargement of the brain,\nthe numerical difference between these and human skulls was much greater\nthan Camper had supposed, since the facial angle of the black\norang-outang or the highest type of chimpanzee was at most 30\u00b0 or 35\u00b0.\nFrom this to the 70\u00b0 of the negro and the Kalmuck the gap was too great\nfor Camper\u2019s scale to have any significance.\n\nCamper\u2019s theory made considerable use of phrenology. He attempted to\ndiscover a corresponding development of instinct as he mounted his scale\nfrom the animals to man. But here too the facts were against him. The\nelephant, for example, whose intelligence is certainly greater than the\norang-outang\u2019s, has a far more acute facial angle; and even the most\ndocile and intelligent monkeys do not belong to the species which are\nthe \u201chighest\u201d in Camper\u2019s series.\n\nBeside these two great defects, the method is very open to attack in\nthat it does not apply to all the varieties of the human race. It leaves\nout of account the tribes with pyramidally shaped heads, who form,\nhowever, a striking division by themselves.\n\nBlumenbach, who held the field against his predecessor, elaborated a\nsystem in his turn; this was to study a man\u2019s head from the top. He\ncalled his discovery _norma verticalis_, the \u201cvertical method.\u201d He was\nconfident that the comparison of heads according to their width brought\nout the chief differences in the general configuration of the skull.\nAccording to him, the study of this part of the body is so pregnant with\nresults, especially in its bearing on national character, that it is\nimpossible to measure all the differences merely by lines and angles; to\nreach a satisfying basis of classification, we must consider the heads\nfrom the point of view in which we can take in at one glance the\ngreatest number of varieties. His idea was, in outline, as follows:\n\u201cArrange the skulls that you wish to compare in such a way that the\njaw-bones are on the same horizontal line; in other words, let each rest\non its lower jaw. Then stand behind the skulls and fix the eye on the\nvertex of each. In this way you will best see the varieties of shape\nthat have most to do with national character; these consist either (1)\nin the direction of the jaw-bone and maxillary, or (2) in the breadth or\nnarrowness of the oval outline presented by the top half of the skull,\nor (3) in the flattened or vaulted form of the frontal bone.\u201d[52]\n\nBlumenbach\u2019s system resulted in the division of mankind into five main\ncategories, which were in their turn subdivided into a certain number of\ntypes and classes.\n\nThis classification was of very doubtful value. Like that of Camper, it\noverlooked many important characteristics. It was partly to escape such\nobjections that Owen proposed to examine skulls, not from the top, but\nfrom the bottom. One of the chief results of this new method was to show\nsuch a strong and definite line of difference between a man and an\norang-outang that it became for ever impossible to find the link that\nCamper imagined to exist between the two species. In fact, one glance at\nthe two skulls, from Owen\u2019s point of view, is enough to bring out their\nradical difference. The diameter from front to back is longer in the\norang-outang than in man; the zygomatic arch, instead of being wholly in\nthe front part of the base, is in the middle, and occupies just a third\nof its diameter. Finally the position of the occipital orifice, which\nhas such a marked influence on general structure and habits, is quite\ndifferent. In the skull of a man, it is almost at the centre of the\nbase; in that of an orang-outang, it is a sixth of the way from the\nhinder end.[53]\n\nOwen\u2019s observations have, no doubt, considerable value; I would prefer,\nhowever, the most recent of the craniological systems, which is at the\nsame time, in many ways, the most ingenious, I mean that of the American\nscholar Morton, adopted by Carus.[54] In outline this is as follows:\n\nTo show the difference of races, Morton and Carus started from the idea,\nthat the greater the size of the skull, the higher the type to which the\nindividual belonged, and they set out to investigate whether the\ndevelopment of the skull is equal in all the human races.\n\nTo solve this question, Morton took a certain number of heads belonging\nto whites, Mongols, negroes, and Redskins of North America. He stopped\nall the openings with cotton, except the _foramen magnum_, and\ncompletely filled the inside with carefully dried grains of pepper. He\nthen compared the number of grains in each. This gave him the following\ntable:\n\n        \u250c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2510\n        \u2502                    \u2502Number of\u2502Average\u2502Maximum\u2502Minimum\u2502\n        \u2502                    \u2502 skulls  \u2502number \u2502number \u2502number \u2502\n        \u2502                    \u2502measured.\u2502  of   \u2502  of   \u2502  of   \u2502\n        \u2502                    \u2502         \u2502grains.\u2502grains.\u2502grains.\u2502\n        \u251c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2524\n        \u2502White races         \u2502       52\u2502     87\u2502    109\u2502     75\u2502\n        \u2502Yellow races\u2502Mongols\u2502       10\u2502     83\u2502     93\u2502     69\u2502\n        \u2502            \u2502Malays \u2502       18\u2502     81\u2502     89\u2502     64\u2502\n        \u2502Redskins            \u2502      147\u2502     82\u2502    100\u2502     60\u2502\n        \u2502Negroes             \u2502       29\u2502     78\u2502     94\u2502     65\u2502\n        \u2514\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2518\n\nThe results set down in the first two columns are certainly very\ncurious. On the other hand, I attach little importance to those in the\nlast two; for if the extraordinary variations from the average in the\nsecond column are to have any real significance, Morton should have\ntaken a far greater number of skulls, and further, have given details as\nto the social position of those to whom the skulls belonged. He was\nprobably able to procure, in the case of the whites and the Redskins,\nheads which had belonged to men at any rate above the lowest level of\nsociety, while it is not likely that he had access to the skulls of\nnegro chiefs, or of Chinese mandarins. This explains how he has been\nable to assign the number 100 to an American Indian, while the most\nintelligent Mongol whom he has examined does not rise above 93, and is\nthus inferior even to the negro, who reaches 94. Such results are a mere\nmatter of chance. They are quite incomplete and unscientific; in such\nquestions, however, one cannot be too careful to avoid judgments founded\nmerely on individual cases. I am inclined therefore to reject altogether\nthe second half of Morton\u2019s calculations.\n\nI must also question one detail in the other half. In the second column,\nthere is a clear gradation from the number 87, indicating the capacity\nof the white man\u2019s skull, to the numbers 83 and 78 for the yellow and\nblack man respectively. But the figures 83, 81, 82, for the Mongols,\nMalays, and Redskins, give average results which evidently shade into\none another; all the more so, because Carus does not hesitate to count\nthe Mongols and Malays as the same race, and consequently to put the\nnumbers 83 and 81 together. But, in that case, why allow the number 82\nto mark a distinct race, and thus create arbitrarily a fourth great\ndivision of mankind?\n\nThis anomaly, however, actually buttresses the weak point in Carus\u2019\nsystem. He likes to think that, just as we see our planet pass through\nthe four stages of day and night, evening and morning twilight, so there\n_must_ be in the human species four subdivisions corresponding to these.\nHe sees here a symbol, which is always a temptation for a subtle mind.\nCarus yields to it, as many of his learned fellow-countrymen would have\ndone in his place. The white races are the nations of the day; the black\nthose of the night; the yellow those of the Eastern, and the red those\nof the Western twilight. We may easily guess the ingenious comparisons\nsuggested by such a picture. Thus, the European nations, owing to the\nbrilliance of their scientific knowledge and the clear outlines of their\ncivilization, are obviously in the full glare of day, while the negroes\nsleep in the darkness of ignorance, and the Chinese live in a half-light\nthat gives them an incomplete, though powerful, social development. As\nfor the Redskins, who are gradually disappearing from the earth, where\ncan we find a more beautiful image of their fate than the setting sun?\n\nUnhappily, comparison is not proof, and by yielding too easily to this\npoetic impulse, Carus has a little damaged his fine theory. The same\ncharge also may be levelled at this as at the other ethnological\ndoctrines; Carus does not manage to include in a systematic whole the\nvarious physiological differences between one race and another.[55]\n\nThe supporters of the theory of racial unity have not failed to seize on\nthis weak point, and to claim that, where we cannot arrange the\nobservations on the shape of the skull in such a way as to constitute a\nproof of the original separation of types, we must no longer consider\nthe variations as pointing to any radical difference, but merely regard\nthem as the result of secondary and isolated causes, with no specific\nrelevance.\n\nThe cry of victory may be raised a little too soon. It may be hard to\nfind the correct method, without being necessarily impossible. The\n\u201cunitarians,\u201d however, do not admit this reservation. They support their\nview by observing that certain tribes that belong to the same race show\na very different physical type. They cite, for instance, the various\nbranches of the hybrid Malayo-Polynesian family, without taking account\nof the proportion in which the elements are mingled in each case. If\ngroups (they say) with a common origin can show quite a different\nconformation of features and skull, the unity of the human race cannot\nbe disproved along these lines at all. However foreign the negro or\nMongol type may appear to European eyes, this is no evidence of their\ndifferent origin; the reasons why the human families have diverged will\nbe found nearer to hand, and we may regard these physiological\ndeviations merely as the result of certain local causes acting for a\ndefinite period of time.[56]\n\nIn face of so many objections, good and bad, the champions of\nmultiplicity tried to extend the sphere of their arguments. Relying no\nlonger on the mere study of skulls, they passed to that of the\nindividual man as a whole. In order to prove (as is quite true) that the\ndifferences do not merely lie in the facial appearance and the bony\nconformation of the head, they brought forward other important\ndifferences with regard to the shape of the pelvis, the proportions of\nthe limbs, the colour of the skin, and the nature of the capillary\nsystem.\n\nCamper and other anthropologists had already recognized that the pelvis\nof the negro showed certain peculiarities. Dr. Vrolik pushed these\ninquiries further, and observed that the difference between the male and\nfemale pelvis was far less marked in the European, while in the negro\nrace he saw in the pelvis of both sexes a considerable approximation to\nthe brute. Assuming that the configuration of the pelvis necessarily\naffected that of the embryo, he inferred a difference of origin.[57]\n\nWeber attacked this theory, with little result. He had to recognize that\nsome formations of the pelvis were found in one race more frequently\nthan in another; and all he could do was to show that there were some\nexceptions to Vrolik\u2019s rule, and that certain American, African, and\nMongolian specimens showed formations that were usually confined to\nEuropeans. This does not prove very much, especially as, in speaking of\nthese exceptions, Weber does not seem to have inquired whether the\npeculiar configuration in question might not result from a mixture of\nblood.\n\nWith regard to the size of the limbs, the opponents of a common origin\nassert that the European is better proportioned. The answer\u2014which is a\ngood one\u2014is that we have no reason to be surprised at the thinness of\nthe extremities in peoples who live mainly on vegetables or have not\ngenerally enough to eat. But as against the argument from the\nextraordinary development of the bust among the Quichuas, the critics\nwho refuse to recognize this as a specific difference are on less firm\nground. Their contention that the development among the mountaineers of\nPeru is explained by the height of the Andes, is hardly serious. There\nare many mountain-peoples in the world who are quite differently\nconstituted from the Quichuas.[58]\n\nThe next point is the colour of the skin. The unitarians deny this any\nspecific influence, first because the colour depends on facts of\nclimate, and is not permanent\u2014a very bold assertion; secondly because\nthe colour is capable of infinite gradation, passing insensibly from\nwhite to yellow, from yellow to black, without showing a really definite\nline of cleavage. This proves nothing but the existence of a vast number\nof hybrids, a fact which the unitarians are continually neglecting, to\nthe great prejudice of their theory.\n\nAs to the specific character of the hair, Flourens is of opinion that\nthis is no argument against an original unity of race.\n\nAfter this rapid review of the divergent theories I come to the great\nscientific stronghold of the unitarians, an argument of great weight,\nwhich I have kept to the end\u2014I mean the ease with which the different\nbranches of the human family create hybrids, and the fertility of these\nhybrids.\n\nThe observations of naturalists seem to prove that, in the animal or\nvegetable world, hybrids can be produced only from allied species, and\nthat, even so, they are condemned to barrenness. It has also been\nobserved that between related species intercourse, although possibly\nfertile, is repugnant, and usually has to be effected by trickery or\nforce. This would tend to show that in the free state the number of\nhybrids is even more limited than when controlled by man. We may\nconclude that the power of producing fertile offspring is among the\nmarks of a distinct species.\n\nAs nothing leads us to believe that the human race is outside this rule,\nthere is no answer to this argument, which more than any other has\nserved to hold in check the forces opposed to unity. We hear, it is\ntrue, that in certain parts of Oceania the native women who have become\nmothers by Europeans are no longer fitted for impregnation by their own\nkind. Assuming this to be true, we might make it the basis of a more\nprofound inquiry; but, so far as the present discussion goes, we could\nnot use it to weaken the general principle of the fertility of human\nhybrids and the infertility of all others; it has no bearing on any\nconclusions that may be drawn from this principle.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER XI\n                    RACIAL DIFFERENCES ARE PERMANENT\n\n\nThe Unitarians say that the separation of the races is merely apparent,\nand due to local influences, such as are still at work, or to accidental\nvariations of shape in the ancestor of some particular branch. All\nmankind is, for them, capable of the same improvement; the original\ntype, though more or less disguised, persists in unabated strength, and\nthe negro, the American savage, the Tungusian of Northern Siberia, can\nattain a beauty of outline equal to that of the European, and would do\nso, if they were brought up under similar conditions. This theory cannot\nbe accepted.\n\nWe have seen above that the strongest scientific rampart of the\nUnitarians lay in the fertility of human hybrids. Up to now, this has\nbeen very difficult to refute, but perhaps it will not always be so; at\nany rate, I should not think it worth while to pause over this argument\nif it were not supported by another, of a very different kind, which, I\nconfess, gives me more concern. It is said that Genesis does not admit\nof a multiple origin for our species.\n\nIf the text is clear, positive, peremptory, and incontestable, we must\nbow our heads; the greatest doubts must yield, reason can only declare\nherself imperfect and inferior, the origin of mankind is single, and\neverything that seems to prove the contrary is merely a delusive\nappearance. It is better to let darkness gather round a point of\nscholarship, than to enter the lists against such an authority. But if\nthe Bible is not explicit, if the Holy Scriptures, which were written to\nshed light on quite other questions than those of race, have been\nmisunderstood, and if without doing them violence one can draw a\ndifferent meaning from them, then I shall not hesitate to go forward.\n\nWe must, of course, acknowledge that Adam is the ancestor of the white\nrace. The scriptures are evidently meant to be so understood, for the\ngenerations deriving from him are certainly white. This being admitted,\nthere is nothing to show that, in the view of the first compilers of the\nAdamite genealogies, those outside the white race were counted as part\nof the species at all. Not a word is said about the yellow races, and it\nis only an arbitrary interpretation of the text that makes us regard the\npatriarch Ham as black. Of course the translators and commentators, in\ncalling Adam the common ancestor of all men, have had to enrol among his\ndescendants all the peoples who have lived since his time. According to\nthem, the European nations are of the stock of Japhet, hither Asia was\noccupied by the Semites, and the regions of Africa by the Hamites, who\nare, as I say, unreasonably considered to be of negro origin. The whole\nscheme fits admirably together\u2014for one part of the world. But what about\nthe other part? It is simply left out.\n\nFor the moment, I do not insist on this line of argument. I do not wish\nto run counter to even literal interpretations of the text, if they are\ngenerally accepted. I will merely point out that we might, perhaps,\ndoubt their value, without going beyond the limits imposed by the\nChurch; and then I will ask whether we may admit the basic principle of\nthe unitarians, such as it is, and yet somehow explain the facts\notherwise than they do. In other words, I will simply ask whether\nindependently of any question of an original unity or multiplicity,\nthere may not exist the most radical and far-reaching differences, both\nphysical and moral, between human races.\n\nThe racial identity of all the different kinds of dog is admitted by\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Cuvier among others;[59] but no one would say that in all dogs,\nwithout distinction of species, we find the same shapes, instincts,\nhabits, and qualities. The same is true of horses, bulls, bears, and the\nlike. Everywhere we see identity of origin, diversity of everything\nelse, a diversity so deep that it cannot be lost except by crossing, and\neven then the products do not return to a real identity of nature. On\nthe other hand, so long as the race is kept pure, the special\ncharacteristics remain unchanged, and are reproduced for generations\nwithout any appreciable difference.\n\nThis fact, which is indisputable, has led some to ask whether in the\nvarious kinds of domestic animals we can recognize the shapes and\ninstincts of the primitive stock. The question seems for ever insoluble.\nIt is impossible to determine the form and nature of a primitive type,\nand to be certain how far the specimens we see to-day deviate from it.\nThe same problem is raised in the case of a large number of vegetables.\nMan especially, whose origin offers a more interesting study than that\nof all the rest, seems to resist all explanation, from this point of\nview.\n\nThe different races have never doubted that the original ancestor of the\nwhole species had precisely their own characteristics. On this point,\nand this alone, tradition is unanimous. The white peoples have made for\nthemselves an Adam and an Eve that Blumenbach would have called\nCaucasian; whereas in the \u201cArabian Nights\u201d\u2014a book which, though\napparently trivial, is a mine of true sayings and well-observed facts\u2014we\nread that some negroes regard Adam and his wife as black, and since\nthese were created in the image of God, God must also be black and the\nangels too, while the prophet of God was naturally too near divinity to\nshow a white skin to his disciples.\n\nUnhappily, modern science has been able to provide no clue to the\nlabyrinth of the various opinions. No likely hypothesis has succeeded in\nlightening this darkness, and in all probability the human races are as\ndifferent from their common ancestor, if they have one, as they are from\neach other. I will therefore assume without discussion the principle of\nunity; and my only task, in the narrow and limited field to which I am\nconfining myself, is to explain the actual deviation from the primitive\ntype.\n\nThe causes are very hard to disentangle. The theory of the unitarians\nattributes the deviation, as I have already said, to habits, climate,\nand locality. It is impossible to agree with this.[60] Changes have\ncertainly been brought about in the constitution of races, since the\ndawn of history, by such external influences; but they do not seem to\nhave been important enough to be able to explain fully the many vital\ndivergences that exist. This will become clear in a moment.\n\nI will suppose that there are two tribes which still bear a resemblance\nto the primitive type, and happen to be living, the one in a mountainous\ncountry in the interior of a continent, the other on an island in the\nmidst of the ocean. The atmosphere and the food conditions of each will\nbe quite different. I will assume that the one has many ways of\nobtaining food, the other very few. Further, I will place the former in\na cold climate, the second under a tropical sun. By this means the\nexternal contrast between them will be complete. The course of time will\nadd its own weight to the action of the natural forces, and there is no\ndoubt that the two groups will gradually accumulate some special\ncharacteristics which will distinguish them from each other. But even\nafter many centuries no vital or organic change will have taken place in\ntheir constitution. This is proved by the fact that we find peoples of a\nvery similar type, living on opposite sides of the world and under quite\ndifferent conditions, of climate and everything else. Ethnologists are\nagreed on this point and some have even believed that the Hottentots are\na Chinese colony\u2014a hypothesis impossible on other grounds\u2014on account of\ntheir likeness to the inhabitants of the Celestial Empire.[61] In the\nsame way, some have seen a great resemblance between the portraits we\nhave of the ancient Etruscans and the Araucans of South America. In\nfeatures and general shape the Cherokees seem almost identical with many\nof the Italian peoples, such as the Calabrians. The usual type of face\namong the inhabitants of Auvergne, especially the women, is far less\nlike the ordinary European\u2019s than that of many Indian tribes of North\nAmerica. Thus when we grant that nature can produce similar types in\nwidely separated countries, under different conditions of life and\nclimate, it becomes quite clear that the human races do not take their\nqualities from any of the external forces that are active at the present\nday.\n\nI would not, however, deny that local conditions may favour the\ndeepening of some particular skin-colour, the tendency to obesity, the\ndevelopment of the chest muscles, the lengthening of the arms or the\nlower limbs, the increase or decrease of physical strength. But, I\nrepeat, these are not essential points; and to judge from the very\nslight difference made by the alteration of local conditions in the\nshape of the body, there is no reason to believe that they have ever had\nvery much influence. This is an argument of considerable weight.\n\nAlthough we do not know what cataclysmal changes may have been effected\nin the physical organization of the races before the dawn of history, we\nmay at least observe that this period extends only to about half the age\nattributed to our species. If for three or four thousand years the\ndarkness is impenetrable, we still have another period of three thousand\nyears, of which we can go right back to the beginning in the case of\ncertain nations. Everything tends to show that the races which were then\nknown, and which have remained relatively pure since that time, have not\ngreatly changed in their outward appearance, although some of them no\nlonger live in the same places, and so are no longer affected by the\nsame external causes. Take, for example, the Arabs of the stock of\nIshmael. We still find them, just as they are represented in the\nEgyptian monuments, not only in the parched deserts of their own land,\nbut in the fertile, and often damp, regions of Malabar and the\nCoromandel Coast, in the islands of the Indies, and on many points of\nthe north coast of Africa, where they are, as a fact, more mixed than\nanywhere else. Traces of them are still found in some parts of\nRoussillon, Languedoc, and the Spanish coast, although almost two\ncenturies have passed away since their invasion. If the mere influence\nof environment had the power, as is supposed, of setting up and taking\naway the limits between organic types, it would have not allowed these\nto persist so long. The change of place would have been followed by a\ncorresponding change of form.\n\nAfter the Arabs, I will mention the Jews, who are still more remarkable\nin this connexion, as they have settled in lands with very different\nclimates from that of Palestine, and have given up their ancient mode of\nlife. The Jewish type has, however, remained much the same; the\nmodifications it has undergone are of no importance and have never been\nenough, in any country or latitude, to change the general character of\nthe race. The warlike Rechabites of the Arabian desert, the peaceful\nPortuguese, French, German, and Polish Jews\u2014they all look alike. I have\nhad the opportunity of examining closely one of the last kind. His\nfeatures and profile clearly betrayed his origin. His eyes especially\nwere unforgettable. This denizen of the north, whose immediate ancestors\nhad lived, for many generations, in the snow, seemed to have been just\ntanned by the rays of the Syrian sun. The Semitic face looks exactly the\nsame, in its main characteristics, as it appears on the Egyptian\npaintings of three or four thousand years ago, and more; and we find it\nalso, in an equally striking and recognizable form, under the most\nvaried and disparate conditions of climate. The identity of descendant\nand ancestor does not stop at the features; it continues also in the\nshape of the limbs and the temperament. The German Jews are usually\nsmaller and more slender in build than the men of European race among\nwhom they have lived for centuries. Further, the marriageable age is\nmuch earlier among them than among their fellow-countrymen of another\nrace.[62]\n\nThis, by the way, is an assertion diametrically opposed to the opinion\nof Prichard, who in his zeal for proving the unity of the species, tries\nto show that the age of puberty, for the two sexes, is the same\neverywhere and in all races.[63] The reasons which he advances are drawn\nfrom the Old Testament in the case of the Jews, and, in the case of the\nArabs, from the religious law of the Koran, by which the age of marriage\nis fixed, for girls, at fifteen, and even (in the opinion of\nAbu-Hanifah) at eighteen.\n\nThese two arguments seem very questionable. In the first place, the\nBiblical evidence is not admissible on this point, as it often includes\nfacts that contradict the ordinary course of nature. Sarah, for example,\nwas brought to bed of a child in extreme old age, when Abraham himself\nhad reached a hundred years;[64] to such an event ordinary reasoning\ncannot apply. Secondly, as to the views and ordinances of the Mohammedan\nlaw, I may say that the Koran did not intend merely to make sure of the\nphysical fitness of the woman before authorizing the marriage. It wished\nher also to be far enough advanced in education and intelligence to be\nable to understand the serious duties of her new position. This is shown\nby the pains taken by the prophet to prescribe that the girl\u2019s religious\ninstruction shall be continued to the time of her marriage. It is easy\nto see why, from this point of view, the day should have been put off as\nlong as possible and why the law-giver thought it so important to\ndevelop the reasoning powers, instead of being as hasty in his\nordinances as nature is in hers. This is not all. Against the serious\nevidence brought forward by Prichard, there are some conclusive\narguments, though of a lighter nature, that decide the question in\nfavour of my view.\n\nThe poets, in their stories of love, are concerned merely with showing\ntheir heroines in the flower of their beauty, without thinking of their\nmoral development; and the Oriental poets have always made their\ngirl-lovers younger than the age prescribed by the Koran. Zuleika and\nLeila are certainly not yet fourteen. In India, the difference is still\nmore marked. Sakuntala would be a mere child in Europe. The best age of\nlove for an Indian girl is from nine to twelve years. It is a very\ngeneral opinion, long accepted and established among the Indian,\nPersian, and Arab races, that the spring of life, for a woman, flowers\nat an age that we should call a little precocious. Our own writers have\nfor long followed the lead, in this matter, of their Roman models.\nThese, like their Greek teachers, regarded fifteen as the best age.\nSince our literature has been influenced by Northern ideas,[65] we have\nseen in our novels nothing but girls of eighteen, or even older.\n\nReturning now to more serious arguments, we find them equally abundant.\nIn addition to what I have said about the German Jews, it may be\nmentioned that in many parts of Switzerland the sexual development of\nthe people is so slow that, in the case of the men, it is not always\ncomplete at twenty. The Bohemians, or Zingaris, yield another set of\nresults, which are easily verified. They show the same early development\nas the Hindus, who are akin to them; and under the most inclement skies,\nin Russia and in Moldavia, they still keep the expression and shape of\nthe face and the physical proportions, as well as the ideas and customs,\nof the pariahs.[66]\n\nI do not, however, mean to oppose Prichard on every point. One of his\nconclusions I gratefully adopt, namely that \u201cdifference of climate\noccasions very little, if any, important diversity as to the periods of\nlife and the physical changes to which the human constitution is\nsubject.\u201d[67] This remark is very true, and I would not dream of\ncontesting it. I merely add that it seems to contradict to some slight\nextent the principles otherwise upheld by the learned American\nphysiologist and antiquary.\n\nThe reader will not fail to see that the question on which the argument\nhere turns is that of the permanence of types. If we have shown that the\nhuman races are each, as it were, shut up in their own individuality,\nand can only issue from it by a mixture of blood, the unitarian theory\nwill find itself very hard-pressed. It will have to recognize that, if\nthe types are thus absolutely fixed, hereditary, and _permanent_, in\nspite of climate and lapse of time, mankind is no less completely and\ndefinitely split into separate parts, than it would be if specific\ndifferences were due to a real divergence of origin.\n\nIt now becomes an easy matter for us to maintain this important\nconclusion, which we have seen to be amply supported, in the case of the\nArabs, by the evidence of Egyptian sculpture, and also by the\nobservation of Jews and gipsies. At the same time there is no reason for\nrejecting the valuable help given by the paintings in the temples and\nunderground chambers in the valley of the Nile, which equally show the\npermanence of the Negro type, with its woolly hair, prognathous head,\nand thick lips. The recent discovery of the bas-reliefs at Khorsabad\nconfirm what was already known from the sculptured tombs of Persepolis,\nand themselves prove, with absolute certainty, that the Assyrians are\nphysiologically identical with the peoples who occupy their territory at\nthe present day.\n\nIf we had a similar body of evidence with regard to other races still\nliving, the result would be the same. The fact of the permanence of\ntypes would merely be more fully demonstrated. It is enough however to\nhave established it in all the cases where observation was possible. It\nis now for those who disagree to propose objections.\n\nThey have no means of doing so, and their line of defence shows them\neither contradicting themselves from the start, or making some assertion\nquite contrary to the obvious facts. For example, they say that the\nJewish type has changed with the climate, whereas the facts show the\nopposite. They base their argument on the existence in Germany of many\nfair-haired Jews with blue eyes.[68] For this to have any value from the\nunitarian point of view, climate would have to be regarded as the sole,\nor at any rate the chief, cause of the phenomenon; whereas the\nunitarians themselves admit that the colour of the skin, eyes, and hair\nin no way depends either on geographical situation or on the influence\nof cold or heat.[69] They rightly mention the presence of blue eyes and\nfair hair among the Cingalese;[70] they even notice a considerable\nvariation from light brown to black. Again, they admit that the\nSamoyedes and Tungusians, although living on the borders of the Arctic\nOcean, are very swarthy.[71] Thus the climate counts for nothing so far\nas the colouring of the skin, hair, and eyes is concerned. We must\nregard them either as having no significance at all, or as vitally bound\nup with race. We know, for example, that red hair is not, and never has\nbeen, rare in the East; and so no one need be surprised to find it\nto-day in some German Jews. Such a fact has no influence, one way or the\nother, on the theory of the permanence of types.\n\nThe unitarians are no more fortunate when they call in history to help\nthem. They give only two instances to prove their theory\u2014the Turks and\nthe Magyars. The Asiatic origin of the former is taken as self-evident,\nas well as their close relation to the Finnish stocks of the Ostiaks and\nthe Laplanders. Hence they had in primitive times the yellow face,\nprominent cheek-bones, and short stature of the Mongols. Having settled\nthis point, our unitarian turns to their descendants of to-day; and\nfinding them of a European type, with long thick beards, eyes\nalmond-shaped, but no longer slanting, he concludes triumphantly, from\nthis utter transformation of the Turks, that there is no permanence in\nrace.[72] \u201cSome people,\u201d he says in effect, \u201chave certainly supposed in\nthem a mixture of Greek, Georgian, and Circassian blood. But this\nmixture has been only partial. Not all Turks have been rich enough to\nbuy wives from the Caucasus; not all have had harems filled with white\nslaves. On the other hand, the hatred felt by the Greeks towards their\nconquerors, and religious antipathy in general, have been unfavourable\nto such alliances; though the two peoples live together, they are just\nas much separated in spirit at the present time as on the first day of\nthe conquest.\u201d[73]\n\nThese reasons are more specious than solid. We can only admit\nprovisionally the Finnish origin of the Turkish race. Up to now, it has\nbeen supported only by a single argument, the affinity of language. I\nwill show later how the argument from language, when taken alone, is\npeculiarly open to doubt and criticism. Assuming however that the\nancestors of the Turkish people belonged to the yellow race, we can\neasily show that they had excellent reasons for keeping themselves apart\nfrom it.\n\nFrom the time when the first Turanian hordes descended from the\nnorth-east to that when they made themselves masters of the city of\nConstantine, a period comprising many centuries, great changes passed\nover the world; and the Western Turks suffered many vicissitudes of\nfortune. They were in turn victors and vanquished, slaves and masters;\nand very diverse were the peoples among whom they settled. According to\nthe annalists,[74] the Oghuzes, their ancestors, came down from the\nAltai Mountains, and, in the time of Abraham lived in the immense\nsteppes of Upper Asia that extend from the Katai to Lake Aral, from\nSiberia to Tibet. This is the ancient and mysterious domain that was\nstill inhabited by many Germanic peoples.[75] It is a curious fact that\nas soon as Eastern writers begin to speak of the peoples of Turkestan,\nthey praise their beauty of face and stature.[76] Hyperbolic expressions\nare the rule, in this connexion; and as these writers had the beautiful\ntypes of the ancient world before their eyes, as a standard, it is not\nvery likely that their enthusiasm should have been aroused by the sight\nof creatures so incontrovertibly ugly and repulsive as the ordinary\nspecimens of the Mongolian race. Thus in spite of the linguistic\nargument, which may itself be wrongly used,[77] we might still make out\na good case for our view. But we will concede the point, and admit that\nthe Oghuzes of the Altai were really a Finnish people; and we will pass\non to the Mohammedan period, when the Turkish tribes were established,\nunder different names and varied circumstances, in Persia and Asia\nMinor.\n\nThe Osmanlis did not as yet exist, and their ancestors, the Seljukians,\nwere already closely connected in blood with the races of Islam. The\nchiefs of this people, such as Gayaseddin-Keikosrev, in 1237, freely\nintermarried with Arab women. They did better still; for Aseddin, the\nmother of another line of Seljukian princes, was a Christian. In all\ncountries the chiefs watch more jealously than the common people over\nthe purity of their race; and when a chief showed himself so free from\nprejudice, it is at least permissible to assume that his subjects were\nnot more scrupulous. As the continual raids of the Seljukians offered\nthem every opportunity to seize slaves throughout the vast territory\nwhich they overran, there is no doubt that, from the thirteenth century,\nthe ancient Oghuz stock, with which the Seljukians of R\u00fbm claimed a\ndistant kinship, was permeated to a great extent with Semitic blood.\n\nFrom this branch sprang Osman, the son of Ortoghrul and father of the\nOsmanlis. The families that collected round his tent were not very\nnumerous. His army was no more than a robber-band; and if the early\nsuccessors of this nomad Romulus were able to increase it, they did so\nmerely by following the practice of the founder of Rome, and opening\ntheir tents to anyone who wished to enter.\n\nIt may be assumed that the fall of the Seljukian Empire helped to send\nrecruits of their own race to the Osmanlis. It is clear that this race\nhad undergone considerable change; besides, even these new resources\nwere not enough, for from this time the Turks began to make systematic\nslave-raids, with the express object of increasing their own population.\nAt the beginning of the fourteenth century, Urkan, at the instance of\nKhalil Chendereli the Black, founded the Guard of Janissaries. At first\nthese were only a thousand strong. But under Mohammed IV the new guard\nnumbered 140,000; and as up to this time the Turks had been careful to\nfill up the ranks only with Christian children taken from Poland,\nGermany, and Italy, or from European Turkey itself, and then converted\nto Islam, there were in four centuries at least 5000 heads of families\nwho infused European blood into the veins of the Turkish nation.\n\nThe racial admixture did not end here. The main object of the piracy\npractised on such a large scale throughout the Mediterranean was to fill\nup the harems. Further (a still more conclusive fact) there was no\nbattle, whether lost or won, that did not increase the number of the\nFaithful. A considerable number of the males changed their religion, and\ncounted henceforth as Turks. Again, the country surrounding the field of\nbattle was overrun by the troops and yielded them all the women they\ncould seize. The plunder was often so abundant that they had difficulty\nin disposing of it; the most beautiful girl was bartered for a\njackboot.[78] When we consider this in connexion with the population of\nAsiatic and European Turkey, which has, as we know, never exceeded\ntwelve millions, we see clearly that the arguments for or against the\npermanence of racial type find no support whatever in the history of\nsuch a mixed people as the Turks. This is so self-evident, that when we\nnotice, as we often do, some characteristic features of the yellow race\nin an Osmanli, we cannot attribute this directly to his Finnish origin;\nit is simply the effect of Slav or Tartar blood, exhibiting, at second\nhand, the foreign elements it had itself absorbed.\n\nHaving finished my observations on the ethnology of the Ottomans, I pass\nto the Magyars.\n\nThe unitarian theory is backed by such arguments as the following: \u201cThe\nMagyars are of Finnish origin, and allied to the Laplanders, Samoyedes,\nand Eskimos. These are all people of low stature, with wide faces and\nprominent cheek-bones, yellowish or dirty brown in colour. The Magyars,\nhowever, are tall and well set up; their limbs are long, supple and\nvigorous, their features are of marked beauty, and resemble those of the\nwhite nations. The Finns have always been weak, unintelligent, and\noppressed. The Magyars take a high place among the conquerors of the\nworld. They have enslaved others, but have never been slaves themselves.\nThus, since the Magyars are Finns, and are so different, physically and\nmorally, from all the other branches of their primitive stock, they must\nhave changed enormously.\u201d[79]\n\nIf such a change had really taken place, it would be so extraordinary as\nto defy all explanation, even by the unitarians, however great the\nmodifications that may be assumed in these particular types; for the\ntransformation-scene would have taken place between the end of the ninth\ncentury and the present day, that is, in about 800 years. Further, we\nknow that in this period St. Stephen\u2019s fellow-countrymen have not\nintermarried to any great extent with the nations among whom they live.\nHappily for common sense, there is no need for surprise, as the\nargument, though otherwise perfect, makes one vital mistake\u2014the\nHungarians are certainly not Finns.\n\nIn a well-written article, A. de Gerando[80] has exploded the theories\nof Schlotzer and his followers. By weighty arguments drawn from Greek\nand Arab historians and Hungarian annalists, by facts and dates that\ndefy criticism, he has proved the kinship of the Transylvanian tribe of\nthe Siculi with the Huns, and the identity in primitive times of the\nformer with the last invaders of Pannonia. Thus the Magyars are Huns.\n\nHere we shall no doubt be met by a further objection, namely that though\nthis argument may point to a different origin for the Magyars, it\nconnects them just as intimately as the other with the yellow race. This\nis an error. The name \u201cHuns\u201d may denote a nation, but it is also,\nhistorically speaking, a collective word. The mass of tribes to which it\nrefers is not homogeneous. Among the crowd of peoples enrolled under the\nbanner of Attila\u2019s ancestors, certain bands, known as the \u201cWhite Huns,\u201d\nhave always been distinguished. In these the Germanic element\npredominated.[81]\n\nContact with the yellow races had certainly affected the purity of their\nblood. There is no mystery about this; the fact is betrayed at once by\nthe rather angular and bony features of the Magyar. The language is very\nclosely related to some Turkish dialects. Thus the Magyars are White\nHuns, though they have been wrongly made out to be a yellow race, a\nconfusion caused, by their intermarriages in the past (whether voluntary\nor otherwise) with Mongolians. They are really, as we have shown,\ncross-breeds with a Germanic basis. The roots and general vocabulary of\ntheir language are quite different from those of the Germanic family;\nbut exactly the same was the case with the Scythians, a yellow race\nspeaking an Aryan dialect,[82] and with the Scandinavians of Neustria,\nwho were, after some years of conquest, led to adopt the Celto-Latin\ndialect of their subjects.[83] Nothing warrants the belief that lapse of\ntime, difference of climate, or change of customs should have turned a\nLaplander or an Ostiak, a Tungusian or a Permian, into a St. Stephen. I\nconclude, from this refutation of the only arguments brought forward by\nthe unitarians, that the permanence of racial types is beyond dispute;\nit is so strong and indestructible that the most complete change of\nenvironment has no power to overthrow it, so long as no crossing takes\nplace.\n\nWhatever side, therefore, one may take in the controversy as to the\nunity or multiplicity of origin possessed by the human species, it is\ncertain that the different families are to-day absolutely separate; for\nthere is no external influence that could cause any resemblance between\nthem or force them into a homogeneous mass.\n\nThe existing races constitute separate branches of one or many primitive\nstocks. These stocks have now vanished. They are not known in historical\ntimes at all, and we cannot form even the most general idea of their\nqualities. They differed from each other in the shape and proportion of\nthe limbs, the structure of the skull, the internal conformation of the\nbody, the nature of the capillary system, the colour of the skin, and\nthe like; and they never succeeded in losing their characteristic\nfeatures except under the powerful influence of the crossing of blood.\n\nThis permanence of racial qualities is quite sufficient to generate the\nradical unlikeness and inequality that exists between the different\nbranches, to raise them to the dignity of natural laws, and to justify\nthe same distinctions being drawn with regard to the physiological life\nof nations, as I shall show, later, to be applicable to their moral\nlife.\n\nOwing to my respect for a scientific authority which I cannot overthrow,\nand, still more, for a religious interpretation that I could not venture\nto attack, I must resign myself to leaving on one side the grave doubts\nthat are always oppressing me as to the question of original unity; and\nI will now try to discover as far as I can, with the resources that are\nstill left to me, the probable causes of these ultimate physiological\ndifferences.\n\nAs no one will venture to deny, there broods over this grave question a\nmysterious darkness, big with causes that are at the same time physical\nand supernatural. In the inmost recesses of the obscurity that shrouds\nthe problem, reign the causes which have their ultimate home in the mind\nof God; the human spirit feels their presence without divining their\nnature, and shrinks back in awful reverence. It is probable that the\nearthly agents to whom we look for the key of the secret are themselves\nbut instruments and petty springs in the great machine. The origins of\nall things, of all events and movements, are not infinitely small, as we\nare often pleased to say, but on the contrary so vast, so immeasurable\nby the poor foot-rule of man\u2019s intelligence, that while we may perhaps\nhave some vague suspicion of their existence, we can never hope to lay\nhands on them or attain to any sure discovery of their nature. Just as\nin an iron chain that is meant to lift up a great weight it frequently\nhappens that the link nearest the object is the smallest, so the\nproximate cause may often seem insignificant; and if we merely consider\nit in isolation, we tend to forget the long series that has gone before.\nThis alone gives it meaning, but this, in all its strength and might,\nderives from something that human eye has never seen. We must not\ntherefore, like the fool in the old adage, wonder at the power of the\nroseleaf to make the water overflow; we should rather think that the\nreason of the accident lay in the depths of the water that filled the\nvessel to overflowing. Let us yield all respect to the primal and\ngenerating causes, that dwell far off in heaven, and without which\nnothing would exist; conscious of the Divine power that moves them, they\nrightly claim a part of the veneration we pay to their Infinite Creator.\nBut let us abstain from speaking of them here. It is not fitting for us\nto leave the human sphere, where alone we may hope to meet with\ncertainty. All we can do is to seize the chain, if not by the last small\nlink, at any rate by that part of it which we can see and touch, without\ntrying to catch at what is beyond our reach\u2014a task too difficult for\nmortal man. There is no irreverence in saying this; on the contrary, it\nexpresses the sincere conviction of a weakness that is insurmountable.\n\nMan is a new-comer in this world. Geology\u2014proceeding merely by\ninduction, but attacking its problems in a marvellously systematic\nway\u2014asserts that man is absent from all the oldest strata of the earth\u2019s\nsurface. There is no trace of him among the fossils. When our ancestors\nappeared for the first time in an already aged world, God, according to\nScripture, told them that they would be its masters and have dominion\nover everything on earth. This promise was given not so much to them as\nto their descendants; for these first feeble creatures seem to have been\nprovided with very few means, not merely of conquering the whole of\nnature, but even of resisting its weakest attacks.[84] The ethereal\nheavens had seen, in former epochs, beings far more imposing than man\nrise from the muddy earth and the deep waters. Most of these gigantic\nraces had, no doubt, disappeared in the terrible revolutions in which\nthe inorganic world had shown a power so immeasurably beyond that\npossessed by animate nature. A great number, however, of these monstrous\ncreatures were still living. Every region was haunted by herds of\nelephants and rhinoceroses, and even the mastodon has left traces of its\nexistence in American tradition.[85]\n\nThese last remnants of the monsters of an earlier day were more than\nenough to impress the first members of our species with an uneasy\nfeeling of their own inferiority, and a very modest view of their\nproblematic royalty. It was not merely the animals from whom they had to\nwrest their disputed empire. These could in the last resort be fought,\nby craft if not by force, and in default of conquest could be avoided by\nflight. The case was quite different with Nature, that immense Nature\nthat surrounded the primitive families on all sides, held them in a\nclose grip, and made them feel in every nerve her awful power.[86] The\ncosmic causes of the ancient cataclysms, although feebler, were always\nat work. Partial upheavals still disturbed the relative positions of\nearth and ocean. Sometimes the level of the sea rose and swallowed up\nvast stretches of coast; sometimes a terrible volcanic eruption would\nvomit from the depths of the waters some mountainous mass, to become\npart of a continent. The world was still in travail, and Jehovah had not\ncalmed it by \u201cseeing that it was good.\u201d\n\nThis general lack of equilibrium necessarily reacted on atmospheric\nconditions. The strife of earth, fire, and water brought with it\ncomplete and rapid changes of heat, cold, dryness, and humidity. The\nexhalations from the ground, still shaken with earthquake, had an\nirresistible influence on living creatures. The causes that enveloped\nthe globe with the breath of battle and suffering could not but increase\nthe pressure brought to bear by nature on man. Differences of climate\nand environment acted on our first parents far more effectively than\nto-day. Cuvier, in his \u201cTreatise on the revolutions of the globe,\u201d says\nthat the inorganic forces of the present day would be quite incapable of\ncausing convulsions and upheavals, or new arrangements of the earth\u2019s\nsurface, such as those to which geology bears witness. The changes that\nwere wrought in the past on her own body by the awful might of nature\nwould be impossible to-day; she had a similar power over the human race,\nbut has it no longer. Her omnipotence has been so lost, or at least so\nweakened and whittled away, that in a period of years covering roughly\nhalf the life of our species on the earth, she has brought about no\nchange of any importance, much less one that can be compared to that by\nwhich the different races were for ever marked off from each other.[87]\n\nTwo points are certain: first that the main differences between the\nbranches of our race were fixed in the earliest epoch of our terrestrial\nlife; secondly, that in order to imagine a period when these\nphysiological cleavages could have been brought about, we must go back\nto the time when the influence of natural causes was far more active\nthan it is now, under the normal and healthy conditions. Such a time\ncould be none other than that immediately after the creation, when the\nearth was still shaken by its recent catastrophes and without any\ndefence against the fearful effects of their last death-throes.\n\nAssuming the unitarian theory, we cannot give any later date for the\nseparation of types.\n\nNo argument can be based on the accidental deviations from the normal\nwhich are sometimes found in certain individual instances, and which, if\ntransmitted, would certainly give rise to important varieties. Without\nincluding such deformities as a hump-back, some curious facts have been\ncollected which seem, at first sight, to be of value in explaining the\ndiversity of races. To cite only one instance, Prichard[88] quotes\nBaker\u2019s account of a man whose whole body, with the exception of his\nface, was covered with a sort of dark shell, resembling a large\ncollection of warts, very hard and callous, and insensible to pain; when\ncut, it did not bleed. At different periods this curious covering, after\nreaching a thickness of three-quarters of an inch, would become\ndetached, and fall off; it was then replaced by another, similar in all\nrespects. Four sons were born to him, all resembling their father. One\nsurvived; but Baker, who saw him in infancy, does not say whether he\nreached manhood. He merely infers that since the father has produced\nsuch offspring, \u201ca race of people may be propagated by this man, having\nsuch rugged coats and coverings as himself; and if this should ever\nhappen, and the accidental original be forgotten, it is not improbable\nthey might be deemed a different species of mankind.\u201d\n\nSuch a conclusion is possible. Individuals, however, who are so\ndifferent as these from the species in general, do not transmit their\ncharacteristics. Their posterity either returns to the regular path or\nis soon extinguished. All things that deviate from the natural and\nnormal order of the world can only borrow life for a time; they are not\nfitted to keep it. Otherwise, a succession of strange accidents would,\nlong before this, have set mankind on a road far removed from the\nphysiological conditions which have obtained, without change, throughout\nthe ages. We must conclude that impermanence is one of the essential and\nbasic features of these anomalies. We could not include in such a\ncategory the woolly hair and black skin of the negro, or the yellow\ncolour, wide face, and slanting eyes of the Chinaman. These are all\npermanent characteristics; they are in no way abnormal, and so cannot\ncome from an accidental deviation.\n\nWe will now give a summary of the present chapter.\n\nIn face of the difficulties offered by the most liberal interpretation\nof the Biblical text, and the objection founded on the law regulating\nthe generation of hybrids, it is impossible to pronounce categorically\nin favour of a multiplicity of origin for the human species.\n\nWe must therefore be content to assign a lower cause to those clear-cut\nvarieties of which the main quality is undoubtedly their permanence, a\npermanence that can only be lost by a crossing of blood. We can identify\nthis cause with the amount of climatic energy possessed by the earth at\na time when the human race had just appeared on its surface. There is no\ndoubt that the forces that inorganic nature could bring into play were\nfar greater then than anything we have known since, and under their\npressure racial modifications were accomplished which would now be\nimpossible. Probably, too, the creatures exposed to these tremendous\nforces were more liable to be affected by them than existing types would\nbe. Man, in his earliest stages, assumed many unstable forms; he did not\nperhaps belong, in any definite manner, to the white, red, or yellow\nvariety. The deviations that transformed the primitive characteristics\nof the species into the types established to-day were probably much\nsmaller than those that would now be required for the black race, for\nexample, to become assimilated to the white, or the yellow to the black.\nOn this hypothesis, we should have to regard Adamite man as equally\ndifferent from all the existing human groups; these would have radiated\nall around him, the distance between him and any group being double that\nbetween one group and another. How much of the primitive type would the\npeoples of the different races have subsequently retained? Merely the\nmost general characteristics of our species, the vague resemblances of\nshape common to the most distant groups, and the possibility of\nexpressing their wants by articulate sounds\u2014but nothing more. The\nremaining features peculiar to primitive man would have been completely\nlost, by the black as well as the non-black races; and although we are\nall originally descended from him, we should have owed to outside\ninfluences everything that gave us our distinctive and special\ncharacter. Henceforth the human races, the product of cosmic forces as\nwell as of the primitive Adamic stock, would be very slightly, if at\nall, related to each other. The power of giving birth to fertile hybrids\nwould certainly be a perpetual proof of original connexion; but it would\nbe the only one. As soon as the primal differences of environment had\ngiven each group its isolated character, as a possession for ever\u2014its\nshape, features, and colour\u2014from that moment the link of primal unity\nwould have been suddenly snapped; the unity, so far as influence on\nracial development went, would be actually sterile. The strict and\nunassailable permanence of form and feature to which the earliest\nhistorical documents bear witness would be the charter and sign-manual\nof the eternal separation of races.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XII\n    HOW THE RACES WERE PHYSIOLOGICALLY SEPARATED, AND THE DIFFERENT\n VARIETIES FORMED BY THEIR INTER-MIXTURE. THEY ARE UNEQUAL IN STRENGTH\n                               AND BEAUTY\n\n\nThe question of cosmic influences is one that ought to be fully cleared\nup, as I am confining myself to arguments based on it. The first problem\nwith which I have to deal is the following:\u2014\u201cHow could men, whose common\norigin implies a single starting-point, have been exposed to such a\ndiversity of influences from without?\u201d After the first separation of\nraces, the groups were already numerous enough to be found under totally\ndifferent conditions of climate; how then, considering the immense\ndifficulties they had to contend against, the vast forests and marshy\nplains they had to cross, the sandy or snowy deserts, the rivers, lakes,\nand oceans\u2014how, with all these obstacles, did they manage to cover\ndistances which civilized man to-day, with all his developed power, can\nonly surmount with great toil and trouble? To answer these objections,\nwe must try to discover where the human species had its original home.\n\nA very ancient idea, adopted also by some great modern minds, such as\nCuvier, is that the different mountain-systems must have served as the\npoint of departure for certain races. According to this theory, the\nwhite races, and even certain African varieties whose skull is shaped\nlike our own, had their first settlement in the Caucasus. The yellow\nrace came down from the ice-bound heights of the Altai. Again, the\ntribes of prognathous negroes built their first huts on the southern\nslopes of Mount Atlas, and made this the starting-point of their first\nmigrations. Thus, the frightful places of the earth, difficult of access\nand full of gloomy horror\u2014torrents, caverns, icy mountains, eternal\nsnows, and impassable abysses\u2014were actually more familiar to primitive\nages than any others; while all the terrors of the unknown lurked, for\nour first ancestors, in the uncovered plains, on the banks of the great\nrivers, on the coasts of the lakes and seas.\n\nThe chief motive urging the ancient philosophers to put forward this\ntheory, and the moderns to revive it, seems to have been the idea that,\nin order to pass successfully through the great physical crises of the\nworld, mankind must have collected on the mountain heights, where the\nfloods and inundations could not reach them. This large and general\ninterpretation of the tradition of Ararat may suit perhaps the later\nepochs, when the children of men had covered the face of the earth; but\nit is quite inapplicable to the time of relative calm that marked their\nfirst appearance. It is also contrary to all theories as to the unity of\nthe species. Again, mountains from the remotest times have been the\nobject of profound terror and religious awe. On them has been set, by\nall mythologies, the abode of the gods. It was on the snowy peak of\nOlympus, it was on Mount Meru that the Greeks and the Brahmans imagined\ntheir divine synods. It was on the summit of the Caucasus that\nPrometheus suffered the mysterious punishment of his still more\nmysterious crime. If men had begun by making their home in the remote\nheights, it is not likely that their imagination would have caused them\nto raise these to the height of heaven itself. We have a scant respect\nfor what we have seen and known and trodden underfoot. There would have\nbeen no divinities but those of the waters and the plains. Hence I\nincline to the opposite belief, that the flat and uncovered regions\nwitnessed the first steps of man. This is, by the way, the Biblical\nnotion.[89] After the first settlements were made in these parts, the\ndifficulties of accounting for migrations are sensibly diminished; for\nflat regions are generally cut by rivers and reach down to the sea, and\nso there would have been no need to undertake the difficult task of\ncrossing forests, deserts, and great marshes.\n\nThere are two kinds of migrations, the voluntary and the unexpected. The\nformer are out of the question in very early times. The latter are more\npossible, and more probable too, among shiftless and unprepared savages\nthan among civilised nations. A family huddled together on a drifting\nraft, a few unfortunate people surprised by an inrush of the sea,\nclinging to trunks of trees, and caught up by the currents\u2014these are\nenough to account for a transplantation over long distances. The weaker\nman is, the more is he the sport of inorganic forces. The less\nexperience he has, the more slavishly does he respond to accidents which\nhe can neither foresee nor avoid. There are striking examples of the\nease with which men can be carried, in spite of themselves, over\nconsiderable distances. Thus, we hear that in 1696 two large canoes from\nAncorso, containing about thirty savages, men and women, were caught in\na storm, and after drifting aimlessly some time, finally arrived at\nSamal, one of the Philippine Islands, three hundred leagues from their\nstarting-point. Again, four natives of Ulea were carried out to sea in a\ncanoe by a sudden squall. They drifted about for eight months, and\nreached at last one of the Radack Islands, at the eastern end of the\nCaroline Archipelago, after an involuntary voyage of 550 leagues. These\nunfortunate men lived solely on fish, and carefully collected every drop\nof rain they could. When rain failed them, they dived into the depths of\nthe sea and drank the water there, which, they say, is less salt.\nNaturally, when they reached Radack, the travellers were in a deplorable\nstate; but they soon rallied, and were eventually restored to\nhealth.[90]\n\nThese two examples are a sufficient witness for the rapid diffusion of\nhuman groups in very different regions, and under the most varied local\nconditions. If further proofs were required, we might mention the ease\nwith which insects, plants, and testaceans are carried all over the\nworld; it is, of course, unnecessary to show that what happens to such\nthings may, a fortiori, happen more easily to man.[91] The\nland-testaceans are thrown into the sea by the destruction of the\ncliffs, and are then carried to distant shores by means of currents.\nZoophytes attach themselves to the shells of molluscs or let their\ntentacles float on the surface of the sea, and so are driven along by\nthe wind to form distant colonies. The very trees of unknown species,\nthe very sculptured planks, the last of a long line, which were cast up\non the Canaries in the fifteenth century, and by providing a text for\nthe meditations of Christopher Columbus paved the way for the discovery\nof the New World\u2014even these probably carried on their surface the eggs\nof insects; and these eggs were hatched, by the heat engendered by new\nsap, far from their place of origin and the land where lived the others\nof their kind.\n\nThus there is nothing against the notion that the first human families\nmight soon have been separated, and lived under very different\nconditions of climate, in regions far apart from each other. But it is\nnot necessary, even under present circumstances, for the places to be\nfar apart, in order to ensure a variation in the temperature, and in the\nlocal conditions resulting from it. In mountainous countries like\nSwitzerland, the distance of a few miles makes such a difference in the\nsoil and atmosphere, that we find the flora of Lapland and Southern\nItaly practically side by side; similarly in Isola Madre, on Lago\nMaggiore, oranges, great cacti, and dwarf palms grow in the open, in\nfull view of the Simplon. We need not confine ourselves to mountains;\nthe temperature of Normandy is lower than that of Jersey, while in the\nnarrow triangle formed by the Western coasts of France, the vegetation\nis of the most varied character.[92]\n\nThe contrasts must have been tremendous, even over the smallest areas,\nin the days that followed the first appearance of our species on the\nglobe. The selfsame place might easily become the theatre of vast\natmospheric revolutions, when the sea retreated or advanced by the\ninundation or drying up of the neighbouring regions; when mountains\nsuddenly rose in enormous masses, or sank to the common level of the\nearth, so that the plains covered what once was their crests; and when\ntremors, that shook the axis of the earth, and by affecting its\nequilibrium and the inclination of the poles to the ecliptic, came to\ndisturb the general economy of the planet.\n\nWe may now consider that we have met all the objections, that might be\nurged as to the difficulty of changing one\u2019s place and climate in the\nearly ages of the world. There is no reason why some groups of the human\nfamily should not have gone far afield, while others were huddled\ntogether in a limited area and yet were exposed to very varied\ninfluences. It is thus that the secondary types, from which are\ndescended the existing races, could have come into being. As to the type\nof man first created, the Adamite, we will leave him out of the argument\naltogether; for it is impossible to know anything of his specific\ncharacter, or how far each of the later families has kept or lost its\nlikeness to him. Our investigation will not take us further back than\nthe races of the second stage.\n\nI find these races naturally divided into three, and three only\u2014the\nwhite, the black, and the yellow.[93] If I use a basis of division\nsuggested by the colour of the skin, it is not that I consider it either\ncorrect or happy, for the three categories of which I speak are not\ndistinguished exactly by colour, which is a very complex and variable\nthing; I have already said that certain facts in the conformation of the\nskeleton are far more important. But in default of inventing new\nnames\u2014which I do not consider myself justified in doing\u2014I must make my\nchoice from the vocabulary already in use. The terms may not be very\ngood, but they are at any rate less open to objection than any others,\nespecially if they are carefully defined. I certainly prefer them to all\nthe designations taken from geography or history, for these have thrown\nan already confused subject into further confusion. So I may say, once\nfor all, that I understand by _white_ men the members of those races\nwhich are also called Caucasian, Semitic, or Japhetic. By _black_ men I\nmean the Hamites; by _yellow_ the Altaic, Mongol, Finnish, and Tatar\nbranches. These are the three primitive elements of mankind. There is no\nmore reason to admit Blumenbach\u2019s twenty-eight varieties than Prichard\u2019s\nseven; for both these schemes include notorious hybrids. It is probable\nthat none of the three original types was ever found in absolute\nsimplicity. The great cosmic agents had not merely brought into being\nthe three clear-cut varieties; they had also, in the course of their\naction, caused many sub-species to appear. These were distinguished by\nsome peculiar features, quite apart from the general character which\nthey had in common with the whole branch. Racial crossing was not\nnecessary to create these specific modifications; they existed before\nany interbreeding took place at all. It would be fruitless to try to\nidentify them to-day in the hybrid agglomeration that constitutes what\nwe call the \u201cwhite race.\u201d It would be equally impossible with regard to\nthe yellow race. Perhaps the black type has to some extent kept itself\npure; at any rate it has remained nearer its original form, and thus\nshows at first sight what, in the case of the other great human\ndivisions, is not given by the testimony of our senses, but may be\nadmitted on the strength of historical proof.\n\nThe negroes have always perpetuated the original forms of their race,\nsuch as the prognathous type with woolly hair, the Hindu type of the\nKamaun and the Deccan, and the Pelagian of Polynesia. New varieties have\ncertainly been created from their intermixture; this is the origin of\nwhat we may call the \u201ctertiary types,\u201d which are seen in the white and\nyellow races, as well as the black.\n\nMuch has been made of a noteworthy fact, which is used to-day as a sure\ncriterion for determining the racial purity of a nation. This fact is\nthe resemblance of face, shape, and general constitution, including\ngesture and carriage. The further these resemblances go, the less\nmixture of blood is there supposed to be in the whole people. On the\nother hand, the more crossing there has been, the greater differences we\nshall find in the features, stature, walk, and general appearance of the\nindividuals. The fact is incontestable, and valuable conclusions may be\ndrawn from it; but the conclusions are a little different from those\nhitherto made.\n\nThe first series of observations by which the fact was discovered was\ncarried out on the Polynesians. Now, these are far from being of pure\nrace; they come from mixtures, in different proportions, of yellow and\nblack. Hence the complete transmission of the type that we see to-day\namong the Polynesians shows, not the purity of the race, but simply that\nthe more or less numerous elements of which it is composed have at last\nbeen fused in a full and homogeneous unity. Each man has the same blood\nin his veins as his neighbour, and so there is no reason why he should\ndiffer physically from him. Just as brothers and sisters are often much\nalike, as being produced from like elements, so, when two races have\nbeen so completely amalgamated that there is no group in the resulting\npeople in which either race predominates, an artificial type is\nestablished, with a kind of factitious purity; and every new-born child\nbears its impress.\n\nWhat I have defined as the \u201ctertiary type\u201d might in this way easily\nacquire the quality that is wrongly appropriated to a people of\nabsolutely pure race\u2014namely the likeness of the individual members to\neach other. This could be attained in a much shorter time at this stage,\nas the differences between two varieties of the same type are relatively\nslight. In a family, for example, where the father and mother belong to\ndifferent nations, the children will be like one or the other, but there\nwill be little chance of any real identity of physical characteristics\nbetween them. If, however, the parents are both from the same national\nstock, such an identity will be easily produced.\n\nWe must mention another law before going further. Crossing of blood does\nnot merely imply the fusion of the two varieties, but also creates new\ncharacteristics, which henceforth furnish the most important standpoint\nfrom which to consider any particular sub-species. Examples will be\ngiven later; meanwhile I need hardly say that these new and original\nqualities cannot be completely developed unless there has previously\nbeen a perfect fusion of the parent-types; otherwise the tertiary race\ncannot be considered as really established. The larger the two nations\nare, the greater will naturally be the time required for their fusion.\nBut until the process is complete, and a state of physiological identity\nbrought about, no new sub-species will be possible, as there is no\nquestion of normal development from an original, though composite\nsource, but merely of the confusion and disorder that are always\nengendered from the imperfect mixture of elements which are naturally\nforeign to each other.\n\nOur actual knowledge of the life of these tertiary races is very slight.\nOnly in the misty beginnings of human history can we catch a glimpse, in\ncertain places, of the white race when it was still in this stage\u2014a\nstage which seems to have been everywhere short-lived. The civilizing\ninstincts of these chosen peoples were continually forcing them to mix\ntheir blood with that of others. As for the black and yellow types, they\nare mere savages in the tertiary stage, and have no history at all.[94]\n\nTo the tertiary races succeed others, which I will call \u201cquaternary.\u201d\nThe Polynesians, sprung from the mixture of black and yellow,[95] the\nmulattoes, a blend of white and black,\u2014these are among the peoples\nbelonging to the quaternary type. I need hardly say, once more, that the\nnew type brings the characteristics peculiar to itself more or less into\nharmony with those which recall its twofold descent.\n\nWhen a quaternary race is again modified by the intervention of a new\ntype, the resulting mixture has great difficulty in becoming stable; its\nelements are brought very slowly into harmony, and are combined in very\nirregular proportions. The original qualities of which it is composed\nare already weakened to a considerable extent, and become more and more\nneutralized. They tend to disappear in the confusion that has grown to\nbe the main feature of the new product. The more this product reproduces\nitself and crosses its blood, the more the confusion increases. It\nreaches infinity, when the people is too numerous for any equilibrium to\nhave a chance of being established\u2014at any rate, not before long ages\nhave passed. Such a people is merely an awful example of racial anarchy.\nIn the individuals we find, here and there, a dominant feature reminding\nus in no uncertain way that blood from every source runs in their veins.\nOne man will have the negro\u2019s hair, another the eyes of a Teuton, a\nthird will have a Mongolian face, a fourth a Semitic figure; and yet all\nthese will be akin! This is the state in which the great civilized\nnations are to-day; we may especially see proofs of it in their\nsea-ports, capitals, and colonies, where a fusion of blood is more\neasily brought about. In Paris, London, Cadiz, and Constantinople, we\nfind traits recalling every branch of mankind, and that without going\noutside the circle of the walls, or considering any but the so-called\n\u201cnative population.\u201d The lower classes will give us examples of all\nkinds, from the prognathous head of the negro to the triangular face and\nslanting eyes of the Chinaman; for, especially since the Roman Empire,\nthe most remote and divergent races have contributed to the blood of the\ninhabitants of our great cities. Commerce, peace, and war, the founding\nof colonies, the succession of invasions, have all helped in their turn\nto increase the disorder; and if one could trace, some way back, the\ngenealogical tree of the first man he met, he would probably be\nsurprised at the strange company of ancestors among whom he would find\nhimself.[96]\n\nWe have shown that races differ physically from each other; we must now\nask if they are also unequal in beauty and muscular strength. The answer\ncannot be long doubtful.\n\nI have already observed that the human groups to which the European\nnations and their descendants belong are the most beautiful. One has\nonly to compare the various types of men scattered over the earth\u2019s\nsurface to be convinced of this. From the almost rudimentary face and\nstructure of the Pelagian and the Pecheray to the tall and nobly\nproportioned figure of Charlemagne, the intelligent regularity of the\nfeatures of Napoleon, and the imposing majesty that exhales from the\nroyal countenance of Louis XIV, there is a series of gradations; the\npeoples who are not of white blood approach beauty, but do not attain\nit.\n\nThose who are most akin to us come nearest to beauty; such are the\ndegenerate Aryan stocks of India and Persia, and the Semitic peoples who\nare least infected by contact with the black race.[97] As these races\nrecede from the white type, their features and limbs become incorrect in\nform; they acquire defects of proportion which, in the races that are\ncompletely foreign to us, end by producing an extreme ugliness. This is\nthe ancient heritage and indelible mark of the greater number of human\ngroups. We can no longer subscribe to the doctrine (reproduced by\nHelvetius in his book on the \u201cHuman Intellect\u201d) which regards the idea\nof the beautiful as purely artificial and variable. All who still have\nscruples on that point should consult the admirable \u201cEssay on the\nBeautiful\u201d of the Piedmontese philosopher, Gioberti; and their doubts\nwill be laid to rest. Nowhere is it better brought out that beauty is an\nabsolute and necessary idea, admitting of no arbitrary application. I\ntake my stand on the solid principles established by Gioberti, and have\nno hesitation in regarding the white race as superior to all others in\nbeauty; these, again, differ among themselves in the degree in which\nthey approach or recede from their model. Thus the human groups are\nunequal in beauty; and this inequality is rational, logical, permanent,\nand indestructible.\n\nIs there also an inequality in physical strength? The American savages,\nlike the Hindus, are certainly our inferiors in this respect, as are\nalso the Australians. The negroes, too, have less muscular power;[98]\nand all these peoples are infinitely less able to bear fatigue. We must\ndistinguish, however, between purely muscular strength, which merely\nneeds to spend itself for a single instant of victory, and the power of\nkeeping up a prolonged resistance. The latter is far more typical than\nthe former, of which we may find examples even in notoriously feeble\nraces. If we take the blow of the fist as the sole criterion of\nstrength, we shall find, among very backward negro races, among the New\nZealanders (who are usually of weak constitution), among Lascars and\nMalays, certain individuals who can deliver such a blow as well as any\nEnglishman. But if we take the peoples as a whole, and judge them by the\namount of labour that they can go through without flinching, we shall\ngive the palm to those belonging to the white race.\n\nThe different groups within the white race itself are as unequal in\nstrength as they are in beauty, though the difference is less marked.\nThe Italians are more beautiful than the Germans or the Swiss, the\nFrench or the Spanish. Similarly, the English show a higher type of\nphysical beauty than the Slav nations.\n\nIn strength of fist, the English are superior to all the other European\nraces; while the French and Spanish have a greater power of resisting\nfatigue and privation, as well as the inclemency of extreme climates.\nThe question is settled, so far as the French are concerned, by the\nterrible campaign in Russia. Nearly all the Germans and the northern\ntroops, accustomed though they were to very low temperatures, sank down\nin the snow; while the French regiments, though they paid their awful\ntribute to the rigours of the retreat, were yet able to save most of\ntheir number. This superiority has been attributed to their better moral\neducation and military spirit. But such an explanation is insufficient.\nThe German officers, who perished by hundreds, had just as high a sense\nof honour and duty as our soldiers had; but this did not prevent them\nfrom going under. We may conclude that the French have certain physical\nqualities that are superior to those of the Germans, which allow them to\nbrave with impunity the snows of Russia as well as the burning sands of\nEgypt.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XIII\n THE HUMAN RACES ARE INTELLECTUALLY UNEQUAL; MANKIND IS NOT CAPABLE OF\n                           INFINITE PROGRESS\n\n\nIn order to appreciate the intellectual differences between races, we\nought first to ascertain the degree of stupidity to which mankind can\ndescend. We know already the highest point that it can reach, namely\ncivilization.\n\nMost scientific observers up to now have been very prone to make out the\nlowest types as worse than they really are.\n\nNearly all the early accounts of a savage tribe paint it in hideous\ncolours, far more hideous than the reality. They give it so little power\nof reason and understanding, that it seems to be on a level with the\nmonkey and below the elephant. It is true that we find the contrary\nopinion. If a captain is well received in an island, if he meets, as he\nbelieves, with a kind and hospitable welcome, and succeeds in making a\nfew natives do a small amount of work with his sailors, then praises are\nshowered on the happy people. They are declared to be fit for anything\nand capable of everything; and sometimes the enthusiasm bursts all\nbounds, and swears it has found among them some higher intelligences.\n\nWe must appeal from both judgments\u2014harsh and favourable alike. The fact\nthat certain Tahitians have helped to repair a whaler does not make\ntheir nation capable of civilization. Because a man of Tonga-Tabu shows\ngoodwill to strangers, he is not necessarily open to ideas of progress.\nSimilarly, we are not entitled to degrade a native of a hitherto unknown\ncoast to the level of the brute, just because he receives his first\nvisitors with a flight of arrows, or because he is found eating raw\nlizards and mud pies. Such a banquet does not certainly connote a very\nhigh intelligence or very cultivated manners. But even in the most\nhideous cannibal there is a spark of the divine fire, and to some extent\nthe flame of understanding can always be kindled in him. There are no\ntribes so low that they do not pass some judgments, true or false, just\nor unjust, on the things around them; the mere existence of such\njudgments is enough to show that in every branch of mankind some ray of\nintelligence is kept alive. It is this that makes the most degraded\nsavages accessible to the teachings of religion and distinguishes them\nin a special manner, of which they are themselves conscious, from even\nthe most intelligent beasts.\n\nAre however these moral possibilities, which lie at the back of every\nman\u2019s consciousness, capable of infinite extension? Do all men possess\nin an equal degree an unlimited power of intellectual development? In\nother words, has every human race the capacity for becoming equal to\nevery other? The question is ultimately concerned with the infinite\ncapacity for improvement possessed by the species as a whole, and with\nthe equality of races. I deny both points.\n\nThe idea of an infinite progress is very seductive to many modern\nphilosophers, and they support it by declaring that our civilization has\nmany merits and advantages which our differently trained ancestors did\nnot possess. They bring forward all the phenomena that distinguished our\nmodern societies. I have spoken of these already; but I am glad to be\nable to go through them again.\n\nWe are told that our scientific opinions are truer than they were; that\nour manners are, as a rule, kindly, and our morals better than those of\nthe Greeks and Romans. Especially with regard to political liberty, they\nsay, have we ideas and feelings, beliefs and tolerances, that prove our\nsuperiority. There are even some hopeful theorists who maintain that our\ninstitutions should lead us straight to that garden of the Hesperides\nwhich was sought so long, and with such ill-success, since the time when\nthe ancient navigators reported that it was not in the Canaries....\n\nA little more serious consideration of history will show what truth\nthere is in these high claims.\n\nWe are certainly more learned than the ancients. This is because we have\nprofited by their discoveries. If we have amassed more knowledge than\nthey, it is merely because we are their heirs and pupils, and have\ncontinued their work. Does it follow that the discovery of steam-power\nand the solution of a few mechanical problems have brought us on the way\nto omniscience? At most, our success may lead us to explore all the\nsecrets of the material world. Before we achieve this conquest, there\nare many things to do which have not even been begun, nay of which the\nvery existence is not yet suspected; but even when the victory is ours,\nshall we have advanced a single step beyond the bare affirmation of\nphysical laws? We shall, I agree, have greatly increased our power of\ninfluencing nature and harnessing her to our service. We shall have\nfound different ways of going round the world, or recognized definitely\nthat certain routes are impossible. We shall have learnt how to move\nfreely about in the air, and, by mounting a few miles nearer the limits\nof the earth\u2019s atmosphere, discovered or cleared up certain astronomical\nor other problems; but nothing more. All this does not lead us to\ninfinity. Even if we had counted all the planetary systems that move\nthrough space, should we be any nearer? Have we learnt a single thing\nabout the great mysteries that was unknown to the ancients? We have,\nmerely, so far as I can see, changed the previous methods of circling\nthe cave where the secret lies. We have not pierced its darkness one\ninch further.\n\nAgain, admitting that we are in certain directions more enlightened, yet\nwe must have lost all trace of many things that were familiar to our\nremote ancestors. Can we doubt that at the time of Abraham far more was\nknown about primeval history than we know to-day? How many of our\ndiscoveries, made by chance or with great labour, are merely\nre-discoveries of forgotten knowledge! Further, how inferior we are in\nmany respects to those who have lived before us! As I said above, in a\ndifferent connexion, can one compare even our most splendid works to the\nmarvels still to be seen in Egypt, India, Greece, and America? And these\nbear witness to the vanished magnificence of many other buildings, which\nhave been destroyed far less by the heavy hand of time than by the\nsenseless ravages of man. What are our arts, compared with those of\nAthens? What are our thinkers, compared with those of Alexandria and\nIndia? What are our poets, by the side of Valmiki, Kalidasa, Homer, and\nPindar?\n\nOur work is, in fact, different from theirs. We have turned our minds to\nother inquiries and other ends than those pursued by the earlier\ncivilized groups of mankind. But while tilling our new field, we have\nnot been able to keep fertile the lands already cultivated. We have\nadvanced on one flank, but have given ground on the other. It is a poor\ncompensation; and far from proving our progress, it merely means that we\nhave changed our position. For a real advance to have been made, we\nshould at least have preserved in their integrity the chief intellectual\ntreasures of the earlier societies, and set up, in addition, certain\ngreat and firmly based conclusions at which the ancients had aimed as\nwell as ourselves. Our arts and sciences, using theirs as the\nstarting-point, should have discovered some new and profound truths\nabout life and death, the genesis of living creatures, and the basic\nprinciples of the universe. On all these questions, modern science, as\nwe imagine, has lost the visionary gleam that played round the dawn of\nantiquity, and its own efforts have merely brought it to the humiliating\nconfession, \u201cI seek and do not find.\u201d There has been no real progress in\nthe intellectual conquests of man. Our power of criticism is certainly\nbetter than that of our forefathers. This is a considerable gain, but it\nstands alone; and, after all, criticism merely means _classification_,\nnot _discovery_.\n\nAs for our so-called new ideas on politics, we may allow ourselves to be\nmore disrespectful to them than to our sciences.\n\nThe same fertility in theorizing, on which we so pride ourselves, was to\nbe found at Athens after the death of Pericles. Anyone may be convinced\nof this by reading again the comedies of Aristophanes, and allowing for\nsatirical exaggeration; they were recommended by Plato himself as a\nguide to the public life of the city of Athene. We have always despised\nsuch comparisons, since we persuaded ourselves that a fundamental\ndifference between our present social order and the ancient Greek State\nwas created by slavery. It made for a more far-reaching demagogy, I\nadmit; but that is all. People spoke of slaves in the same way as one\nspeaks to-day of workmen and the lower classes; and, further, how very\nadvanced the Athenians must have been, when they tried to please their\nservile population after the battle of Arginus\u00e6!\n\nLet us now turn to Rome. If you open the letters of Cicero, you will\nfind the Roman orator a moderate Tory of to-day. His republic is exactly\nlike our constitutional societies, in all that relates to the language\nof parties and Parliamentary squabbles. There too, in the lower depths,\nseethed a population of degraded slaves, with revolt ever in their\nhearts, and sometimes in their fists also. We will leave this mob on one\nside; and we can do it the more readily as the law did not recognize\ntheir civil existence. They did not count in politics, and their\ninfluence was limited to times of uproar. Even then, they merely carried\nout the commands of the revolutionaries of free birth.\n\nRegarding, then, the slaves as of no account, does not the Forum offer\nus all the constituents of a modern social State? The populace,\ndemanding bread and games, free doles and the right to enjoy them; the\nmiddle class, which succeeded in its aim of monopolizing the public\nservices; the patriciate, always being transformed and giving ground,\nalways losing its rights, until even its defenders agreed, as their one\nmeans of defence, to refuse all privileges and merely claim liberty for\nall;\u2014have we not here an exact correspondence with our own time?\n\nDoes anyone believe that of the opinions we hear expressed to-day,\nhowever various they may be, there is a single one, or any shade of one,\nthat was not known at Rome? I spoke above of the letters written from\nthe Tusculan Villa: they contain the thoughts of a Conservative with\nprogressive leanings. As against Sulla, Pompeius and Cicero were\nLiberals. They were not liberal enough for C\u00e6sar, and were too much so\nfor Cato. Later, under the Principate, we find a moderate Royalist in\nPliny the Younger, though one who loved tranquillity. He was against\nexcessive liberty for the people, and excessive power for the Emperor.\nHis views were positivist; he thought little of the vanished splendours\nof the age of the Fabii, and preferred the prosaic administration of a\nTrajan. Not everyone agreed with him. Many feared another insurrection\nlike that of Spartacus, and thought that the Emperor could not make too\ndespotic a use of his power. On the other hand, some of the provincials\nasked for, and obtained, what we should call constitutional guarantees;\nwhile Socialist opinions found so highly placed a representative as the\nGallic Emperor Gaius Junius Postumus, who set down, among his subjects\nfor declamation, _Dives et pauper inimici_, \u201cThe rich and the poor are\nnatural enemies.\u201d\n\nIn fact, every man who had any claim to share in the enlightenment of\nthe time strongly asserted the equality of the human race, the right of\nall men to have their part in the good things of this world, the obvious\nnecessity of the Gr\u00e6co-Roman civilization, its perfection and\nrefinement, its certainty of a future progress even beyond its present\nstate, and, to crown all, its existence for ever. These ideas were not\nmerely the pride and consolation of the pagans; they inspired also the\nfirm hopes of the first and most illustrious Fathers of the Church, of\nwhose views Tertullian was the self-constituted interpreter.[99]\n\nFinally\u2014to complete the picture with a last striking trait\u2014the most\nnumerous party of all was formed by the indifferent, the people who were\ntoo weak or timid, too sceptical or contemptuous, to find truth in the\nmidst of all the divergent theories that passed kaleidoscopically before\ntheir eyes; who loved order when it existed, and (so far as they could)\nendured disorder when it came; who were always wondering at the progress\nof material comforts unknown to their fathers, and who, without wishing\nto think too much of the other side, consoled themselves by repeating\nover and over again, \u201cWonderful are the works of to-day!\u201d\n\nThere would be more reason to believe that we have made improvements in\npolitical science, if we had invented some machinery that was unknown,\nin its essentials, before our time. Such a glory is not ours. Limited\nmonarchies, for example, have been familiar to every age, and curious\ninstances can be seen among certain American tribes, which in other\nrespects have remained savage. Democratic and aristocratic republics of\nall kinds, balanced in the most various ways, have existed in the New as\nwell as the Old World. Tlaxcala is just as good an example as Athens,\nSparta, and Mecca before Mohammed\u2019s time. Even if it were shown that we\nhad ourselves made some secondary improvements in the art of government,\nwould this be enough to justify such a sweeping assertion as that the\nhuman race is capable of unlimited progress? Let us be as modest as that\nwisest of kings, when he said, \u201cThere is nothing new under the\nsun.\u201d[100]\n\nWe come now to the question of manners. Ours are said to be gentler than\nthose of the other great human societies; but this is very doubtful.\n\nThere are some rhetoricians to-day who would like to abolish war between\nnations. They have taken this theory from Seneca. Certain wise men of\nthe East had also, on this subject, views that are precisely similar to\nthose of the Moravian brotherhood. But even if the friends of universal\npeace succeeded in making Europe disgusted with the idea of war, they\nwould still have to bring about a permanent change in the passions of\nmankind. Neither Seneca nor the Brahmans obtained such a victory. It is\ndoubtful whether we are to succeed where they failed; especially as we\nmay still see in our fields and our streets the bloody traces left by\nour so-called \u201chumanity.\u201d\n\nI agree that our principles are pure and elevated. Does our practice\ncorrespond to them?\n\nBefore we congratulate ourselves on our achievements, let us wait till\nour modern countries can boast of two centuries of peace, as could Roman\nItaly,[101] the example of which has unfortunately not been followed by\nlater ages; for since the beginning of modern civilization fifty years\nhave never passed without massacres.\n\nThe capacity for infinite progress is, thus, not shown by the present\nstate of our civilization. Man has been able to learn some things, but\nhas forgotten many others. He has not added one sense to his senses, one\nlimb to his limbs, one faculty to his soul. He has merely explored\nanother region of the circle in which he is confined, and even the\ncomparison of his destiny with that of many kinds of birds and insects\ndoes not always inspire very consoling thoughts as to his happiness in\nthis life.\n\nThe bees, the ants, and the termites have found for themselves, from the\nday of their creation, the kind of life that suited them. The last two,\nin their communities, have invented a way of building their houses,\nlaying in their provisions, and looking after their eggs, which in the\nopinion of naturalists could be neither altered nor improved.[102] Such\nas it is, it has always been sufficient for the small wants of the\ncreatures who use it. Similarly the bees\u2014with their monarchical\ngovernment, which admits of the deposition of the sovereign but not of a\nsocial revolution\u2014have never for a single day turned aside from the\nmanner of life that is most suitable to their needs. Metaphysicians were\nallowed for a long time to call animals machines, and to assign the\ncause of their movements to God, who was the \u201csoul of the brutes,\u201d\n_anima brutorum_. Now that the habits of these so-called automata are\nstudied in a more careful way, we have not merely given up this\ncontemptuous theory; we have even recognized that instinct has a\ncapacity that raises it almost to the dignity of reason.\n\nIn the bee-kingdom, we see the queens a prey to the anger of their\nsubjects; this implies either a spirit of mutiny in the latter, or the\ninability of the former to fulfil their lawful obligations. We see too\nthe termites sparing their conquered enemies, and then making them\nprisoners, and employing them in the public service by giving them the\ncare of the young. What are we to conclude from such facts as these?\n\nOur modern States are certainly more complicated, and satisfy our needs\nin larger measure: but when I see the savage wandering on his way,\nfierce, sullen, idle, and dirty, lazily dragging his feet along his\nuncultivated ground, carrying the pointed stick that is his only weapon,\nand followed by the wife whom he has bound to him by a marriage-ceremony\nconsisting solely in an empty and ferocious violence;[103] when I see\nthe wife carrying her child, whom she will kill with her own hands if he\nfalls ill, or even if he worries her;[104] when I see this miserable\ngroup under the pressure of hunger, suddenly stop, in its search for\nfood, before a hill peopled by intelligent ants, gape at it in wonder,\nput their feet through it, seize the eggs and devour them, and then\nwithdraw sadly into the hollow of a rock,\u2014when I see all this, I ask\nmyself whether the insects that have just perished are not more highly\ngifted than the stupid family of the destroyer, and whether the instinct\nof the animals, restricted as it is to a small circle of wants, does not\nreally make them happier than the faculty of reason which has left our\npoor humanity naked on the earth, and a thousand times more exposed than\nany other species to the sufferings caused by the united agency of air,\nsun, rain, and snow. Man, in his wretchedness, has never succeeded in\ninventing a way of providing the whole race with clothes or in putting\nthem beyond the reach of hunger and thirst. It is true that the\nknowledge possessed by the lowest savage is more extensive than that of\nany animal; but the animals know what is useful to them, and we do not.\nThey hold fast to what knowledge they have, but we often cannot keep\nwhat we have ourselves discovered. They are always, in normal seasons,\nsure of satisfying their needs by their instincts. But there are\nnumerous tribes of men that from the beginning of their history have\nnever been able to rise above a stinted and precarious existence. So far\nas material well-being goes, we are no better than the animals; our\nhorizon is wider than theirs, but, like theirs, it is still cramped and\nbounded.\n\nI have hardly insisted enough on this unfortunate tendency of mankind to\nlose on one side what it gains on the other. Yet this is the great fact\nthat condemns us to wander through our intellectual domains without ever\nsucceeding, in spite of their narrow limits, in holding them all at the\nsame time. If this fatal law did not exist, it might well happen that at\nsome date in the dim future, when man had gathered together all the\nwisdom of all the ages, knowing what he had power to know and possessing\nall that was within his reach, he might at last have learnt how to apply\nhis wealth, and live in the midst of nature, at peace with his kind and\nno longer at grips with misery; and having gained tranquillity after all\nhis struggles, he might find his ultimate rest, if not in a state of\nabsolute perfection, at any rate in the midst of joy and abundance.\n\nSuch happiness, with all its limitations, is not even possible for us,\nsince man unlearns as fast as he learns; he cannot gain intellectually\nand morally without losing physically, and he does not hold any of his\nconquests strongly enough to be certain of keeping them always.\n\nWe moderns believe that our civilization will never perish, because we\nhave discovered printing, steam, and gunpowder. Has printing, which is\nno less known to the inhabitants of Tonkin and Annam[105] than in\nEurope, managed to give them even a tolerable civilization? They have\nbooks, and many of them\u2014books which are sold far cheaper than ours. How\nis it that these peoples are so weak and degraded, so near the point\nwhere civilized man, strengthless, cowardly, and corrupted, is inferior\nin intellectual power to any barbarian who may seize the opportunity to\ncrush him?[106] The reason is, that printing is merely a means and not\nan end. If you use it to disseminate healthy and vigorous ideas, it will\nserve a most fruitful purpose and help to maintain civilization. If, on\nthe other hand, the intellectual life of a people is so debased that no\none any longer prints such works of philosophy, history, and literature,\nas can give strong nourishment to a nation\u2019s genius; if the degraded\npress merely serves to multiply the unhealthy and poisonous compilations\nof enervated minds, if its theology is the work of sectaries, its\npolitics of libellers, its poetry of libertines,\u2014then how and why should\nthe printing-press be the saviour of civilization?\n\nBecause copies of the great masterpieces can be easily multiplied, it is\nsupposed that printing helps to preserve them; and that in times of\nintellectual barrenness, when they have no other competitors, printing\ncan at least make them accessible to the nobler minds of the age. This\nis of course true. Yet if a man is to trouble himself about an ancient\nbook at all, or gain any improvement from it, he must already have the\nprecious gift of an enlightened mind. In evil times, when public virtue\nhas left the earth, ancient writings are of little account, and no one\ncares to disturb the silence of the libraries. A man must be already\nworth something before he thinks of entering these august portals; but\nin such times no one is worth anything....\n\nFurther, the length of life assured by Gutenberg\u2019s discovery to the\nachievements of the human mind is greatly exaggerated. With the\nexception of a few works which are from time to time reprinted, all\nbooks are dying to-day, as manuscripts died in the old days. Scientific\nworks especially, which are published in editions of a few hundred\ncopies, soon disappear from the common stock. They can still be found,\nthough with difficulty, in large collections. The intellectual treasures\nof antiquity were in exactly the same case; and, I repeat, learning will\nnot save a people which has fallen into its dotage.\n\nWhat have become of the thousands of admirable books published since the\nfirst printing-press was set up? Most of them have been forgotten. Many\nof those that are still spoken of have no longer any readers, while the\nvery names of the authors who were in demand fifty years ago are\ngradually fading from memory.\n\nIn the attempt to heighten the influence of printing, too little stress\nhas been laid on the great diffusion of manuscripts that preceded it. At\nthe time of the Roman Empire, opportunities for education were very\ngeneral, and books must have been very common indeed, if we look at the\nextraordinary number of out-at-elbows grammarians, whose poverty,\nlicentiousness, and passionate search for enjoyment live for us in the\n_Satyricon_ of Petronius. They swarmed even in the smallest towns, and\nmay be compared to the novelists, lawyers, and journalists of our own\nage. Even when the decadence was complete, anyone who wanted books could\nget them. Virgil was read everywhere. The peasants who heard his praises\ntook him for a dangerous enchanter. The monks copied him. They copied\nalso Pliny, Dioscorides, Plato, Aristotle, even Catullus and Martial.\nFrom the great number of medi\u00e6val manuscripts that remain after so much\nwar and pillage, after the burning of so many castles and abbeys, we may\nguess that far more copies than one thinks were made of contemporary\nworks, literary, scientific, and philosophical. We exaggerate the real\nservices done by printing to science, poetry, morality, and\ncivilization; it would be better if we merely touched lightly on these\nmerits and spoke more of the way in which the invention of printing is\ncontinually helping all kinds of religious and political interests.\nPrinting, I say again, is a marvellous tool; but when head and hand\nfail, a tool cannot work by itself.\n\nGunpowder has no more power than printing to save a society that is in\ndanger of death. The knowledge of how to make it will certainly never be\nforgotten. I doubt, however, whether the half-civilized peoples who use\nit to-day as much as we do ourselves, ever look upon it from any other\npoint of view than that of destruction.\n\nAs for steam-power and the various industrial discoveries, they too,\nlike printing, are most excellent means, but not ends in themselves. I\nmay add that some processes which began as scientific discoveries ended\nas matters of routine, when the intellectual movement that gave them\nbirth had stopped for ever, and the theoretical secrets at the back of\nthe processes had been lost. Finally, material well-being has never been\nanything but an excrescence on civilization; no one has ever heard of a\nsociety that persisted solely through its knowledge of how to travel\nquickly and make fine clothes.\n\nAll the civilizations before our own have thought, as we do, that they\nwere set firmly on the rock of time by their unforgettable discoveries.\nThey all believed in their immortality. The Incas and their families,\nwho travelled swiftly in their palanquins on the excellent roads,\nfifteen hundred miles long, that still link Cuzco to Quito, were\ncertainly convinced that their conquests would last for ever. Time, with\none blow of his wing, has hurled their empire, like so many others, into\nthe uttermost abyss. These kings of Peru also had their sciences, their\nmachinery, their powerful engines, at the work of which we still stand\namazed without being able to guess their construction. They too knew the\nsecret of carrying enormous masses from place to place. They built\nfortresses by piling, one upon the other, blocks of stone thirty-eight\nfeet long and eighteen wide, such as may be seen in the ruins of\nTihuanaco, to which these gigantic building-materials must have been\nbrought from a distance of many miles. Do we know the means used by the\nengineers of this vanished people to solve such a problem? No more than\nwe know how the vast Cyclopean walls were constructed, the ruins of\nwhich, in many parts of Southern Europe, still defy the ravages of time.\n\nWe must not confuse the causes of a civilization with its results. The\ncauses disappear, and the results are forgotten, when the spirit that\ngave them birth has departed. If they persist, it is because of a new\nspirit that takes hold of them, and often succeeds in giving quite a new\ndirection to their activities. The human mind is always in motion. It\nruns from one point to another, but cannot be in all places at once. It\nexalts what it embraces, and forgets what it has abandoned. Held\nprisoner for ever within a circle whose bounds it may not overstep, it\nnever manages to cultivate one part of its domain without leaving the\nothers fallow. It is always at the same time superior and inferior to\nits forbears. Mankind never goes beyond itself, and so is not capable of\ninfinite progress.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XIV\n PROOF OF THE INTELLECTUAL INEQUALITY OF RACES (_continued_). DIFFERENT\n CIVILIZATIONS ARE MUTUALLY REPULSIVE. HYBRID RACES HAVE EQUALLY HYBRID\n                             CIVILIZATIONS\n\n\nIf the human races were equal, the course of history would form an\naffecting, glorious, and magnificent picture. The races would all have\nbeen equally intelligent, with a keen eye for their true interests and\nthe same aptitude for conquest and domination. Early in the world\u2019s\nhistory, they would have gladdened the face of the earth with a crowd of\ncivilizations, all flourishing at the same time, and all exactly alike.\nAt the moment when the most ancient Sanscrit peoples were founding their\nempire, and, by means of religion and the sword, were covering Northern\nIndia with harvests, towns, palaces, and temples; at the moment when the\nfirst Assyrian Empire was crowning the plains of the Tigris and\nEuphrates with its splendid buildings, and the chariots and horsemen of\nNimroud were defying the four winds, we should have seen, on the African\ncoast, among the tribes of the prognathous negroes, the rise of an\nenlightened and cultured social state, skilful in adapting means to\nends, and in possession of great wealth and power.\n\nThe Celts, in the course of their migrations, would have carried with\nthem to the extreme west of Europe the necessary elements of a great\nsociety, as well as some tincture of the ancient wisdom of the East;\nthey would certainly have found, among the Iberian peoples spread over\nthe face of Italy, in Gaul and Spain and the islands of the\nMediterranean, rivals as well schooled as themselves in the early\ntraditions, as expert as they in the arts and inventions required for\ncivilization.\n\nMankind, at one with itself, would have nobly walked the earth, rich in\nunderstanding, and founding everywhere societies resembling each other.\nAll nations would have judged their needs in the same way, asked nature\nfor the same things, and viewed her from the same angle. A short time\nwould have been sufficient for them to get into close contact with each\nother and to form the complex network of relations that is everywhere so\nnecessary and profitable for progress.\n\nThe tribes that were unlucky enough to live on a barren soil, at the\nbottom of rocky gorges, on the shores of ice-bound seas, or on steppes\nfor ever swept by the north winds\u2014these might have had to battle against\nthe unkindness of nature for a longer time than the more favoured\npeoples. But in the end, having no less wisdom and understanding than\nthe others, they would not have been backward in discovering that the\nrigours of a climate has its remedies. They would have shown the\nintelligent activity we see to-day among the Danes, the Norwegians, and\nthe Icelanders. They would have tamed the rebellious soil, and forced\nit, in spite of itself, to be productive. In mountainous regions, we\nshould have found them leading a pastoral life, like the Swiss, or\ndeveloping industries like those of Cashmere. If their climate had been\nso bad, and its situation so unfavourable, that there was obviously\nnothing to be done with it, then the thought would have struck them that\nthe world was large, and contained many valleys and kindly plains; they\nwould have left their ungrateful country, and soon have found a land\nwhere they could turn their energy and intelligence to good account.\n\nThen the nations of the earth, equally enlightened and equally rich,\nsome by the commerce of their seething maritime cities, some by the\nagriculture of their vast and flourishing prairies, others by the\nindustries of a mountainous district, others again by the facilities for\ntransport afforded them by their central position\u2014all these, in spite of\nthe temporary quarrels, civil wars, and seditions inseparable from our\ncondition as men, might soon have devised some system of balancing their\nconflicting interests. Civilizations identical in origin would, by a\nlong process of give and take, have ended by being almost exactly alike;\none might then have seen established that federation of the world which\nhas been the dream of so many centuries, and which would inevitably be\nrealized if all races were actually gifted, in the same degree, with the\nsame powers.\n\nBut we know that such a picture is purely fantastic. The first peoples\nworthy of the name came together under the inspiration of an idea of\nunion which the barbarians who lived more or less near them not only\nfailed to conceive so quickly, but never conceived at all. The early\npeoples emigrated from their first home and came across other peoples,\nwhich they conquered; but these again neither understood nor ever\nadopted with any intelligence the main ideas in the civilization which\nhad been imposed on them. Far from showing that all the tribes of\nmankind are intellectually alike, the nations capable of civilization\nhave always proved the contrary, first by the absolutely different\nfoundations on which they based their states, and secondly by the marked\nantipathy which they showed to each other. The force of example has\nnever awakened any instinct, in any people, which did not spring from\ntheir own nature. Spain and the Gauls saw the Ph\u0153nicians, the Greeks,\nand the Carthaginians, set up flourishing towns, one after the other, on\ntheir coasts. But both Spain and the Gauls refused to copy the manners\nand the government of these great trading powers. When the Romans came\nas conquerors, they only succeeded in introducing a different spirit by\nfilling their new dominions with Roman colonies. Thus the case of the\nCelts and the Iberians shows that civilization cannot be acquired\nwithout the crossing of blood.\n\nConsider the position of the American Indians at the present day. They\nlive side by side with a people which always wishes to increase in\nnumbers, to strengthen its power. They see thousands of ships passing up\nand down their waterways. They know that the strength of their masters\nis irresistible. They have no hope whatever of seeing their native land\none day delivered from the conqueror; their whole continent is\nhenceforth, as they all know, the inheritance of the European. A glance\nis enough to convince them of the tenacity of those foreign institutions\nunder which human life ceases to depend, for its continuance, on the\nabundance of game or fish. From their purchases of brandy, guns, and\nblankets, they know that even their own coarse tastes would be more\neasily satisfied in the midst of such a society, which is always\ninviting them to come in, and which seeks, by bribes and flattery, to\nobtain their consent. It is always refused. They prefer to flee from one\nlonely spot to another; they bury themselves more and more in the heart\nof the country, abandoning all, even the bones of their fathers. They\nwill die out, as they know well; but they are kept, by a mysterious\nfeeling of horror, under the yoke of their unconquerable repulsion from\nthe white race, and although they admire its strength and general\nsuperiority, their conscience and their whole nature, in a word, their\nblood, revolts from the mere thought of having anything in common with\nit.\n\nIn Spanish America less aversion is felt by the natives towards their\nmasters. The reason is that they were formerly left by the central\nGovernment under the rule of their Caciques. The Government did not try\nto civilize them; it allowed them to keep their own laws and customs,\nand, provided they became Christians, merely required them to pay\ntribute. There was no question of colonization. Once the conquest was\nmade, the Spaniards showed a lazy tolerance to the conquered, and only\noppressed them spasmodically. This is why the Indians of South America\nare less unhappy than those of the north, and continue to live on,\nwhereas the neighbours of the Anglo-Saxons will be pitilessly driven\ndown into the abyss.\n\nCivilization is incommunicable, not only to savages, but also to more\nenlightened nations. This is shown by the efforts of French goodwill and\nconciliation in the ancient kingdom of Algiers at the present day, as\nwell as by the experience of the English in India, and the Dutch in\nJava. There are no more striking and conclusive proofs of the unlikeness\nand inequality of races.\n\nWe should be wrong to conclude that the barbarism of certain tribes is\nso innate that no kind of culture is possible for them. Traces may be\nseen, among many savage peoples, of a state of things better than that\nobtaining now. Some tribes, otherwise sunk in brutishness, hold to\ntraditional rules, of a curious complexity, in the matter of marriage,\ninheritance, and government. Their rites are unmeaning to-day, but they\nevidently go back to a higher order of ideas. The Red Indians are\nbrought forward as an example; the vast deserts over which they roam are\nsupposed to have been once the settlements of the Alleghanians.[107]\nOthers, such as the natives of the Marianne Islands, have methods of\nmanufacture which they cannot have invented themselves. They hand them\ndown, without thought, from father to son, and employ them quite\nmechanically.\n\nWhen we see a people in a state of barbarism, we must look more closely\nbefore concluding that this has always been their condition. We must\ntake many other facts into account, if we would avoid error.\n\nSome peoples are caught in the sweep of a kindred race; they submit to\nit more or less, taking over certain customs, and following them out as\nfar as possible. On the disappearance of the dominant race, either by\nexpulsion, or by a complete absorption in the conquered people, the\nlatter allows the culture, especially its root principles, to die out\nalmost entirely, and retains only the small part it has been able to\nunderstand. Even this cannot happen except among nations related by\nblood. This was the attitude of the Assyrians towards the Chaldean\nculture, of the Syrian and Egyptian Greeks towards the Greeks of Europe,\nof the Iberians, Celts, and Illyrians in face of the Roman ideas. If the\nCherokees, the Catawhas, the Muskhogees, the Seminoles, the Natchez, and\nthe like, still show some traces of the Alleghanian intelligence, I\ncannot indeed infer that they are of pure blood, and directly descended\nfrom the originating stock\u2014this would mean that a race that was once\ncivilized can lose its civilization;\u2014I merely say that if any of them\nderives from the ancient conquering type as its source, the stream is a\nmuddy one, and has been mingled with many tributaries on the way. If it\nwere otherwise, the Cherokees would never have fallen into barbarism. As\nfor the other and less gifted tribes, they seem to represent merely the\ndregs of the indigenous population, which was forced by the foreign\nconquerors to combine together to form the basic elements of a new\nsocial state. It is not surprising that these remnants of civilization\nshould have preserved, without understanding them, laws, rites, and\ncustoms invented by men cleverer than themselves; they never knew their\nmeaning or theoretical principles, or regarded them as anything but\nobjects of superstitious veneration. The same argument applies to the\ntraces of mechanical skill found among them. The methods so admired by\ntravellers may well have been ultimately derived from a finer race that\nhas long disappeared. Sometimes we must look even further for their\norigin. Thus, the working of mines was known to the Iberians,\nAquitanians, and the Bretons of the Scilly Isles; but the secret was\nfirst discovered in Upper Asia, and thence brought long ago by the\nancestors of the Western peoples in the course of their migration.\n\nThe natives of the Caroline Islands are almost the most interesting in\nPolynesia. Their looms, their carved canoes, their taste for trade and\nnavigation put a deep barrier between them and the other negroes. It is\nnot hard to see how they come to have these powers. They owe them to the\nMalay blood in their veins; and as, at the same time, their blood is far\nfrom being pure, their racial gifts have survived only in a stunted and\ndegraded form.\n\nWe must not therefore infer, from the traces of civilization existing\namong a barbarous people, that it has ever been really civilized. It has\nlived under the dominion of another tribe, of kindred blood but superior\nto it; or perhaps, by merely living close to the other tribe, it has,\nfeebly and humbly, imitated its customs. The savage races of to-day have\nalways been savage, and we are right in concluding, by analogy, that\nthey will continue to be so, until the day when they disappear.\n\nTheir disappearance is inevitable as soon as two entirely unconnected\nraces come into active contact; and the best proof is the fate of the\nPolynesians and the American Indians.\n\nThe preceding argument has established the following facts:\n\n(i) The tribes which are savage at the present day have always been so,\nand always will be, however high the civilizations with which they are\nbrought into contact.\n\n(ii) For a savage people even to go on living in the midst of\ncivilization, the nation which created the civilization must be a nobler\nbranch of the same race.\n\n(iii) This is also necessary if two distinct civilizations are to affect\neach other to any extent, by an exchange of qualities, and give birth to\nother civilizations compounded from their elements. That they should\never be fused together is of course out of the question.\n\n(iv) The civilizations that proceed from two completely foreign races\ncan only touch on the surface. They never coalesce, and the one will\nalways exclude the other. I will say more about this last point, as it\nhas not been sufficiently illustrated.\n\nThe fortune of war brought the Persian civilization face to face with\nthe Greek, the Greek with the Roman, the Egyptian with both Roman and\nGreek; similarly the modern European civilization has confronted all\nthose existing to-day in the world, especially the Arabian.\n\nThe relations of Greek with Persian culture were manifold and\ninevitable. A large part of the Hellenic population\u2014the richest, if not\nthe most independent\u2014was concentrated in the towns of the Syrian\nlittoral, and in the colonies of Asia Minor and the Euxine. These were,\nsoon after their foundation, absorbed in the dominions of the Great\nKing; the inhabitants lived under the eye of the satrap, though to a\ncertain extent they retained their democratic institutions. Again,\nGreece proper, the Greece that was free, was always in close contact\nwith the cities of the Asiatic coast.\n\nWere the civilizations of the two countries ever fused into one? We know\nthey were not. The Greeks regarded their powerful enemies as barbarians,\nand their contempt was probably returned with interest. The two nations\nwere continually coming into contact, but their political ideas, their\nprivate habits, the inner meaning of their public rites, the scope of\ntheir art, and the forms of their government, remained quite distinct.\nAt Ecbatana only one authority was recognized; it was hereditary, and\nlimited in certain traditional ways, but was otherwise absolute. In\nHellas the power was subdivided among a crowd of different sovereigns.\nThe government was monarchical at Sparta, democratic at Athens,\naristocratic at Sicyon, tyrannic in Macedonia\u2014a strange medley! Among\nthe Persians, the State religion was far nearer to the primitive idea of\n_emanation_; it showed the same tendency to unity as the government\nitself did, and had a moral and metaphysical significance that was not\nwithout a certain philosophic depth. The Greek symbolism, on the other\nhand, was concerned merely with the various outward appearances of\nnature, and issued in a glorification of the human form. Religion left\nthe business of controlling a man\u2019s conscience to the laws of the State;\nas soon as the due rites were performed, and his meed of honour paid to\nthe local god or hero, the office of faith was complete. Further, the\nrites themselves, the gods, and the heroes, were different in places a\nfew miles apart. If, in some sanctuaries like Olympia or Dodona, we seem\nto find the worship, not of some special force of nature, but of the\ncosmic principle itself, such a unity only makes the diversity of the\nrest more remarkable; for this kind of worship was confined to a few\nisolated places. Besides, the oracle of Dodona and the cult of the\nOlympian Zeus were foreign importations.\n\nAs for the private customs of the Greeks, it is hardly necessary to show\nhow much they differed from those of the Persians. For a rich,\npleasure-loving, and cosmopolitan youth to imitate the habits of rivals\nfar more luxurious and outwardly refined than the Greeks, was to bring\nhimself into public contempt. Until the time of Alexander\u2014in other\nwords, during the great, fruitful and glorious period of\nHellenism\u2014Persia, in spite of its continual pressure, could not convert\nGreece to its civilization.\n\nWith the coming of Alexander, this was curiously confirmed. Men believed\nfor a moment, when they saw Hellas conquering the kingdom of Darius,\nthat Asia was about to become Greek, or, still better, that the acts of\nviolence wrought in the madness of a single night by the conqueror\nagainst the monuments of the country were, in their very excess, a proof\nof contempt as well as hatred. But the burner of Persepolis soon changed\nhis mind. The change was so complete that his design at last became\napparent; it was to substitute himself purely and simply for the dynasty\nof the Achaemenidae, and to rule like his predecessor or the great\nXerxes, with Greece as an appanage of his empire. In this way, the\nPersian social system might have absorbed that of the Greeks.\n\nIn spite, however, of all Alexander\u2019s authority, nothing of the kind\nhappened. His generals and soldiers never became used to seeing him in\nhis long clinging robe, wearing a turban on his head, surrounded by\neunuchs and denying his country. After his death, his system was\ncontinued by some of his successors; they were, however, forced to\nmitigate it. And why, as a fact, were they able to find the middle term\nwhich became the normal condition of the Asiatics of the coast and the\nGr\u00e6co-Egyptians? Simply because their subjects consisted of a mixed\npopulation of Greeks, Syrians, and Arabs, who had no reason to refuse\nthe compromise. Where, however, the races remained distinct, all terms\nof union were impossible, and each country held to its national culture.\n\nSimilarly, right up to the last days of the Roman Empire, the hybrid\ncivilization that was dominant all over the East, including Greece\nproper, had become much more Asiatic than Greek, owing to the great\npreponderance of Asiatic blood in the mass of the people. The\nintellectual life, it is true, took pride in being Hellenic. But it is\nnot hard to find, in the thought of the time, an Oriental strain\nvitalizing all the products of the Alexandrian school, such as the\n\u201ccentralized state\u201d idea of the Gr\u00e6co-Syrian jurists. We see how the\ndifferent racial elements were balanced, and to which side the scale\ninclined.\n\nOther civilizations may be compared in the same way; and before ending\nthis chapter, I will say a few words about the relation between Arab\nculture and our own.\n\nNo one can doubt their mutual repulsion. Our medi\u00e6val ancestors had\nopportunities of seeing at close quarters the marvels of the Mussulman\nState, when they willingly sent their sons to study in the schools of\nCordova. Yet nothing Arabian remains in Europe outside the nations that\nhave a tinge of Ishmaelitish blood. Brahmanic India showed no more\neagerness than ourselves to come to terms with Islam, and has, like us,\nresisted all the efforts of its Mohammedan masters.\n\nTo-day, it is our turn to deal with the remains of Arab civilization. We\nharry and destroy the Arabs, but we do not succeed in changing them,\nalthough their civilization is not itself original, and so should have\nless power of resistance. It is notorious that the Arabian people,\nitself weak in numbers, continually incorporated the remnants of the\nraces it had conquered by the sword. The Mussulmans form a very mixed\npopulation, with an equally hybrid culture, of which it is easy to\ndisentangle the elements. The conquering nucleus did not, before\nMohammed, consist of a new or unknown people. Its traditions were held\nin common with the Semite and Hamite families from which it was\noriginally derived. It was brought into conflict with the Ph\u0153nicians and\nthe Jews, and had the blood of both in its veins. It played a\nmiddleman\u2019s part in their Red Sea trade, and on the eastern coasts of\nIndia and Africa. It did the same, later, for the Persians and the\nRomans. Many Arab tribes took part in the political life of Persia under\nthe Arsacid\u00e6 and Sassanid\u00e6, while some of their princes, like\nOdenathus,[108] were proclaimed C\u00e6sar, some of their princesses, like\nZenobia, daughter of Amru and Queen of Palmyra, won a glory that was\ndistinctively Roman, and some of their adventurers, like Philip, even\nraised themselves to the Imperial purple. Thus this hybrid nation had\nnever ceased, from the most ancient times, to make itself felt among the\npowerful societies among which it lived. It had associated itself with\ntheir work, and like a body half sunk in water, half exposed to the sun,\ncontained at one and the same time elements of barbarism and of an\nadvanced civilization.\n\nMohammed invented the religion that was best fitted to the mental state\nof his people, where idolatry found many followers, but where\nChristianity, distorted by heretics and Judaizers, made just as many\nproselytes. In the religious system of the Prophet of Koresh the\nreconciliation between the law of Moses and the Christian faith was more\ncomplete than in the doctrines of the Church. This problem had greatly\nexercised the minds of the early Catholics, and was always present to\nthe Oriental conscience. Hence Mohammed\u2019s gift had already an appetizing\nappearance, and besides, any theological novelty had a good chance of\ngaining converts among the Syrians and Egyptians. To crown all, the new\nreligion came forward sword in hand; this was another guarantee of\nsuccess among the masses, who had no common bond of union, other than\nthe strong conviction of their helplessness.\n\nIt was thus that Islam came forth from the desert. Arrogant,\nuninventive, and with a civilization that was already, for the most\npart, Gr\u00e6co-Asiatic, it found the ground prepared for it. Its recruits,\non the East and South coasts of the Mediterranean, had already been\nsaturated with the complex product which it was bringing to them, and\nwhich in turn it reabsorbed. The new cult, that had borrowed its\ndoctrines from the Church, the Synagogue, and the garbled traditions of\nthe Hedjaz and the Yemen, extended from Bagdad to Montpellier; and with\nthe cult came its Persian and Roman laws, its Gr\u00e6co-Syrian[109] and\nEgyptian science, and its system of administration, which was tolerant\nfrom the first, as is natural where there is no unity in the State\norganism. We need not be astonished at the rapid progress in refinement\nmade by the Mussulmans. The greater part of the people had merely\nchanged their habits for the time being. When they began to play the\npart of apostles in the world, their identity was not at once\nrecognized; they had not been known under their old names for some time.\nAnother important point must be remembered. In this varied collection of\npeoples, each no doubt contributed its share to the common welfare. But\nwhich of them had given the first push to the machine, and which\ndirected its motion for the short time it lasted? Why, the little\nnucleus of Arab tribes that had come from the interior of the peninsula,\nand consisted, not of philosophers, but of fanatics, soldiers,\nconquerors, and rulers.\n\nArab civilization was merely the old Gr\u00e6co-Syrian civilization, modified\nby Persian admixture, and revived and rejuvenated by the new, sharp\nbreath of a genius. Hence, although ready to make concessions, it could\nnot come to terms with any form of society that had a different origin\nfrom its own, any more than the Greek culture could with the Roman,\nalthough these were so near to each other and lived side by side for so\nmany centuries within the same Empire.\n\nThe preceding paragraphs are enough to show how impossible it is that\nthe civilizations belonging to racially distinct groups should ever be\nfused together. The irreconcilable antagonism between different races\nand cultures is clearly established by history, and such innate\nrepulsion must imply unlikeness and inequality. If it is admitted that\nthe European cannot hope to civilize the negro, and manages to transmit\nto the mulatto only a very few of his own characteristics; if the\nchildren of a mulatto and a white woman cannot really understand\nanything better than a hybrid culture, a little nearer than their\nfather\u2019s to the ideas of the white race,\u2014in that case, I am right in\nsaying that the different races are unequal in intelligence.\n\nI will not adopt the ridiculous method that is unhappily only too dear\nto our ethnologists. I will not discuss, as they do, the moral and\nintellectual standing of individuals taken one by one.\n\nI need not indeed speak of morality at all, as I have already admitted\nthe power of every human family to receive the light of Christianity in\nits own way. As to the question of intellectual merit, I absolutely\nrefuse to make use of the argument, \u201cevery negro is a fool.\u201d[110] My\nmain reason for avoiding it is that I should have to recognize, for the\nsake of balance, that every European is intelligent; and heaven keep me\nfrom such a paradox!\n\nI will not wait for the friends of equality to show me such and such\npassages in books written by missionaries or sea-captains, who declare\nthat some Yolof is a fine carpenter, some Hottentot a good servant, that\nsome Kaffir dances and plays the violin, and some Bambara knows\narithmetic.\n\nI am ready to admit without proof all the marvels of this kind that\nanyone can tell me, even about the most degraded savages. I have already\ndenied that even the lowest tribes are absolutely stupid. I actually go\nfurther than my opponents, as I have no doubt that a fair number of\nnegro chiefs are superior, in the wealth of their ideas, the synthetic\npower of their minds, and the strength of their capacity for action, to\nthe level usually reached by our peasants, or even by the average\nspecimens of our half-educated middle class. But, I say again, I do not\ntake my stand on the narrow ground of individual capacity. It seems to\nme unworthy of science to cling to such futile arguments. If Mungo Park\nor Lander have given a certificate of intelligence to some negro, what\nis to prevent another traveller, who meets the same ph\u0153nix, from coming\nto a diametrically opposite conclusion? Let us leave these puerilities,\nand compare together, not men, but groups. When, as may happen some day,\nwe have carefully investigated what the different groups can and cannot\ndo, what is the limit of their faculties and the utmost reach of their\nintelligence, by what nations they have been dominated since the dawn of\nhistory\u2014then and then only shall we have the right to consider why the\nhigher individuals of one race are inferior to the geniuses of another.\nWe may then go on to compare the powers of the average men belonging to\nthese types, and to find out where these powers are equal and where one\nsurpasses the other. But this difficult and delicate task cannot be\nperformed until the relative position of the different races has been\naccurately, and to some extent mathematically, gauged. I do not even\nknow if we shall ever get clear and undisputed results, if we shall ever\nbe free to go beyond a mere general conclusion and come to such close\ngrips with the minor varieties as to be able to recognize, define, and\nclassify the lower strata and the average minds of each nation. If we\ncan do this, we shall easily be able to show that the activity, energy,\nand intelligence of the least gifted individuals in the dominant races,\nare greater than the same qualities in the corresponding specimens\nproduced by the other groups.[111]\n\nMankind is thus divided into unlike and unequal parts, or rather into a\nseries of categories, arranged, one above the other, according to\ndifferences of intellect.\n\nIn this vast hierarchy there are two great forces always acting on each\nmember of the series. These forces are continually setting up movements\nthat tend to fuse the races together; they are, as I have already\nindicated,[112] (i) resemblance in general bodily structure and (ii) the\ncommon power of expressing ideas and sensations by the modulation of the\nvoice.\n\nI have said enough about the first of these, and have shown the true\nlimits within which it operates.\n\nI will now discuss the second point, and inquire what is the relation\nbetween the power of a race and the merit of its language; in other\nwords, whether the strongest races have the best idioms, and if not, how\nthe anomaly may be explained.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER XV\n    THE DIFFERENT LANGUAGES ARE UNEQUAL, AND CORRESPOND PERFECTLY IN\n               RELATIVE MERIT TO THE RACES THAT USE THEM\n\n\nIf a degraded people, at the lowest rung of the racial ladder, with as\nlittle significance for the \u201cmale\u201d as for the \u201cfemale\u201d progress of\nmankind, could possibly have invented a language of philosophic depth,\nof \u00e6sthetic beauty and flexibility, rich in characteristic forms and\nprecise idioms, fitted alike to express the sublimities of religion, the\ngraces of poetry, the accuracy of physical and political science,\u2014such a\npeople would certainly possess an utterly useless talent, that of\ninventing and perfecting an instrument which their mental capacity would\nbe too weak to turn to any account.\n\nWe should have, in such a case, to believe that our observation has been\nsuddenly brought to a stop, not by something unknown or unintelligible\n(as often happens) but by a mere absurdity.\n\nAt first sight, this tantalizing answer seems the correct one. If we\ntake the races as they are to-day, we must admit that the perfection of\nidiom is very far from corresponding, in all cases, to the degree of\ncivilization reached. The tongues of modern Europe, to speak of no\nothers, are unequal in merit, and the richest and most beautiful do not\nnecessarily belong to the most advanced people. Further, they are one\nand all vastly inferior to many languages which have been at different\ntimes spoken in the world.\n\nA still more curious fact is that the languages of whole groups of\npeoples which have stopped at a low level of culture may be of\nconsiderable merit. Thus the net of language, with its varied meshes,\nmight seem to have been cast over mankind at random, the silk and the\ngold sometimes covering rude, ferocious, and miserable tribes, while\nwise and learned peoples are still caught in the hemp, the wool, and the\nhorsehair. Happily, this is so only in appearance. If, with the aid of\nhistory, we apply our doctrine of the difference of races, we shall soon\nfind that our proofs of their intellectual inequality are even\nstrengthened.\n\nThe early philologists were doubly in error, when they thought, first\nthat all languages are formed on the same principle, secondly that\nlanguage was invented merely under the stress of material needs. In the\nformer point they were influenced by the unitarian doctrine that all\nhuman groups have a common origin.\n\nWith regard to language, doubt is not even possible. The modes of\nformation are completely different; and whether the classifications of\nphilology require revision or not, we cannot believe for a moment that\nthe Altaic, Aryan, and Semitic families were not from the first\nabsolutely foreign to each other. Nothing is the same. The vocabulary\nhas its own peculiar character in each of these groups. There is a\ndifferent modulation of the voice in each. In one, the lips are used to\nproduce the sounds; in another, the contraction of the throat; in\nanother the nasal passage and the upper part of the head. The\ncomposition of the parts of speech, according as they confuse or\ndistinguish the various shades of thought, points equally to a\ndifference of origin. The most striking proof of the divergence in\nthought and feeling between one group and another are seen in the\ninflexions of the substantive and the conjugations of the verb. When,\ntherefore, the philosopher tries to give an account of the origin of\nlanguage by a process of purely abstract conjecture, and begins by\nconceiving an \u201coriginal man,\u201d without any specific racial or linguistic\ncharacter, he starts from an absurdity, and continues on the same lines.\nThere is no such being as \u201cman\u201d in the abstract; and I am especially\nsure that he will not be discovered by the investigation of language. I\ncannot argue on the basis that mankind started from some one point in\nits creation of idiom. There were many points of departure, because\nthere were many forms of thought and feeling.[113]\n\nThe second view, I think, is just as false. According to this theory,\nthere would have been no development save as dictated by necessity. The\nresult would be that the \u201cmale\u201d races would have a richer and more\naccurate language than the \u201cfemale\u201d; further, as material needs are\nconcerned with objects apprehended by the senses, and especially with\nactions, the main factor of human speech would be vocabulary.\n\nThere would be no necessity for the syntax and grammatical structure to\nadvance beyond the simplest and most elementary combinations. A series\nof sounds more or less linked together is always enough to express a\nneed; and a gesture, as the Chinese know well, is an obvious form of\ncommentary, when the phrase is obscure without it.[114] Not only would\nthe synthetic power of language remain undeveloped; it would also be the\npoorer for dispensing with harmony, quantity, and rhythm. For what is\nthe use of melody when the sole object is to obtain some positive\nresult? A language, in fact, would be a mere chance collection of\narbitrary sounds.\n\nCertain questions are apparently cleared up by such a theory. Chinese,\nthe tongue of a masculine race, seems to have been at first developed\nwith a purely utilitarian aim. The word has never risen above a mere\nsound, and has remained monosyllabic. There is no evolution of\nvocabulary, no root giving birth to a family of derivatives. All the\nwords are roots; they are not modified by suffixes, but by each other,\naccording to a very crude method of juxtaposition. The grammar is\nextremely simple; which makes the phraseology very monotonous. The very\nidea of \u00e6sthetic value is excluded, at any rate for ears that are\naccustomed to the rich, varied, and abundant forms, the inexhaustible\ncombinations of happier tongues. We must however add that this may not\nbe the impression produced on the Chinese themselves; and their spoken\nlanguage certainly aims at some kind of beauty, since there are definite\nrules governing the melodic sequence of sounds. If it does not succeed\nin being so euphonious as other languages, we must still recognize that\nit aims at euphony no less than they. Further, the primary elements of\nChinese are something more than a mere heaping together of useful\nsounds.[115]\n\nI admit that the masculine races may be markedly inferior in \u00e6sthetic\npower to the others,[116] and their inferiority may be reproduced in\ntheir idioms. This is shown, not merely by the relative poverty of\nChinese, but also by the careful way in which certain Western races have\nrobbed Latin of its finest rhythmic qualities, and Gothic of its\nsonority. The inferiority of our modern languages, even the best of\nthem, to Sanscrit, Greek, and Latin, is self-evident, and corresponds\nexactly to the mediocrity of the Chinese civilization and our own, so\nfar as art and literature are concerned. I admit that this difference,\nalone with others, may serve to mark off the languages of the masculine\nraces. They still, however, have a feeling for rhythm (less than that of\nthe ancient tongues, but still powerful), and make a real attempt to\ncreate and obey laws of correspondence between sounds and the forms by\nwhich thought is modified in speech. I conclude that even in the\nlanguages of masculine races there still flickers the intellectual\nspark, the feeling for beauty and logic; this feeling, as well as that\nof material need, must preside at the birth of every language.\n\nI said above that if material need had reigned alone, a set of any\nchance sounds would have been enough for human necessities, in the first\nages of man\u2019s existence. Such a theory cannot be maintained.\n\nSounds are not assigned to ideas by pure chance. The choice is governed\nby the instinctive recognition of a certain logical relation between\nnoises heard outwardly by man\u2019s ear and ideas that his throat or tongue\nwishes to express. In the eighteenth century men were greatly struck by\nthis truth. Unfortunately, it was caught in the net of etymological\nexaggeration so characteristic of the time; and its results were so\nabsurd that they justly fell into disrepute. For a long time the best\nminds were warned off the land that had been so stupidly exploited by\nthe early pioneers. They are now beginning to return to it again, and if\nthey have learnt prudence and restraint in the bitter school of\nexperience, they may arrive at valuable conclusions. Without pushing a\ntheory, true in itself, into the realm of chimeras, we may allow that\nprimitive speech knew how to use as far as possible the different\nimpressions received by the ear, in order to form certain classes of\nwords; in creating others it was guided by the feeling of a mysterious\nrelation between certain abstract ideas and some particular noises.\nThus, for example, the sound of _\u0113_ seems to suggest death and\ndissolution, that of _v_ or _w_, vagueness in the moral or physical\nrealm, vows, wind, and the like; _s_ suggests starkness and standing\nfast, _m_ maternity, and so on.[117] Such a theory is sufficiently well\nfounded for us to take it seriously, if kept within due limits. But it\nmust be used with great circumspection, if we are not to find ourselves\nin the dark paths where even common sense is soon led astray.\n\nThe last paragraph may show, however imperfectly, that material need is\nnot the only element that produces a language, but that the best of\nman\u2019s powers have helped in the task. Sounds were not applied\narbitrarily to ideas and objects, and in this respect men followed a\npre-established order, one side of which was manifested in themselves.\nThus the primitive tongues, however crude and poor they may have been,\ncontained all the elements from which their branches might at a later\ntime be developed in a logical and necessary sequence.\n\nW. von Humboldt has observed, with his usual acuteness, that every\nlanguage is independent of the will of those who speak it. It is closely\nbound up with their intellectual condition, and is beyond the reach of\narbitrary caprice. It cannot be altered at will, as is curiously shown\nby the efforts that have been made to do so.\n\nThe Bushmen have invented a system of changing their language, in order\nto prevent its being understood by the uninitiated. We find the same\ncustom among certain tribes of the Caucasus. But all their efforts come\nto no more than the mere insertion of a subsidiary syllable at the\nbeginning, middle, or end of words. Take away this parasitic element,\nand the language remains the same, changed neither in forms nor syntax.\n\nDe Sacy has discovered a more ambitious attempt, in the language called\n\u201cBala\u00efbalan.\u201d This curious idiom was invented by the Sufis, to be used\nin their mystical books, with the object of wrapping the speculations of\ntheir theologians in still greater mystery. They made up, on no special\nplan, the words that seemed to them to sound most strangely to their\nears. If however this so-called language did not belong to any family\nand if the meaning given to its sounds was entirely arbitrary, yet the\nprinciples of euphony, the grammar and the syntax, everything in fact\nwhich gives a language its special character, bore the unmistakable\nstamp of Arabic and Persian. The Sufis produced a jargon at once Aryan\nand Semitic, and of no importance whatever. The pious colleagues of\nDjelat-Eddin-Rumi were not able to invent a language; and clearly this\npower has not been given to any single man.[118]\n\nHence the language of a race is closely bound up with its intelligence,\nand has the power of reflecting its various mental stages, as they are\nreached. This power may be at first only implicit.[119]\n\nWhere the mental development of a race is faulty or imperfect, the\nlanguage suffers to the same extent. This is shown by Sanscrit, Greek,\nand the Semitic group, as well as by Chinese, in which I have already\npointed out a utilitarian tendency corresponding to the intellectual\nbent of the people. The superabundance of philosophical and ethnological\nterms in Sanscrit corresponds to the genius of those who spoke it, as\nwell as its richness and rhythmic beauty. The same is the case with\nGreek; while the lack of precision in the Semitic tongues is exactly\nparalleled by the character of the Semitic peoples.\n\nIf we leave the cloudy heights of the remoter ages, and come down to the\nmore familiar regions of modern history, we shall be, as it were,\npresiding at the birth of many new tongues; and this will make us see\nwith even greater clearness how faithfully language mirrors the genius\nof a race.\n\nAs soon as two nations are fused together, a revolution takes place in\ntheir respective languages; this is sometimes slow, sometimes sudden,\nbut always inevitable. The languages are changed and, after a certain\ntime, die out as separate entities. The new tongue is a compromise\nbetween them, the dominant element being furnished by the speech of the\nrace that has contributed most members to the new people.[120] Thus,\nfrom the thirteenth century, the Germanic dialects of France have had to\nyield ground, not to Latin, but to the _lingua romana_, with the revival\nof the Gallo-Roman power.[121] Celtic, too, had to retreat before the\nItalian colonists. It did not yield to Italian civilization; in fact,\none might say, that, thanks to the number of those who spoke it, Celtic\nfinally gained a kind of victory. For after the complete fusion of the\nGauls, the Romans, and the northern tribes, it was Celtic that laid the\nfoundations of modern French syntax, abolished the strong accentuation\nof Germanic as well as the sonority of Latin, and introduced its own\nequable rhythm. The gradual development of French is merely the effect\nof this patient labour, that went on, without ceasing, under the\nsurface. Again, the reason why modern German has lost the striking forms\nto be seen in the Gothic of Bishop Ulfilas lies in the presence of a\nstrong Cymric element in the midst of the small Germanic population that\nwas still left to the east of the Rhine,[122] after the great migrations\nof the sixth and following centuries of our era.\n\nThe linguistic results of the fusion of two peoples are as individual as\nthe new racial character itself. One may say generally that no language\nremains pure after it has come into close contact with a different\nlanguage. Even when their structures are totally unlike each other, the\nvocabulary at any rate suffers some changes. If the parasitic language\nhas any strength at all, it will certainly attack the other in its\nrhythmic quality, and even in the unstable parts of its syntax. Thus\nlanguage is one of the most fragile and delicate forms of property; and\nwe may often see a noble and refined speech being affected by barbarous\nidioms and passing itself into a kind of relative barbarism. By degrees\nit will lose its beauty; its vocabulary will be impoverished, and many\nof its forms obsolete, while it will show an irresistible tendency to\nbecome assimilated to its inferior neighbour. This has happened in the\ncase of Wallachian and Rh\u00e6tian, Kawi and Birman. The two latter have\nbeen leavened with Sanscrit elements; but in spite of this noble\nalliance, they have been declared by competent judges to be inferior to\nDelaware.[123]\n\nThe group of tribes speaking this dialect are of the Lenni-Lenapes\nfamily, and they originally ranked higher than the two yellow peoples\nwho were caught in the sweep of Hindu civilization. If, in spite of\ntheir primitive superiority, they are now inferior to the Asiatics, it\nis because these live under the influence of the social institutions of\na noble race and have profited by them, though in themselves they are of\nslight account. Contact with the Hindus has been enough to raise them\nsome way in the scale, while the Lenapes, who have never been touched by\nany such influence, have not been able to rise above their present\ncivilization. In a similar way (to take an obvious example) the young\nmulattoes who have been educated in London or Paris may show a certain\nveneer of culture superior to that of some Southern Italian peoples, who\nare in point of merit infinitely higher; for once a mulatto, always a\nmulatto. When therefore we come upon a savage tribe with a language\nbetter than that of a more civilized nation, we must examine carefully\nwhether the civilization of the latter really belongs to it, or is\nmerely the result of a slight admixture of foreign blood. If so, a low\ntype of native language helped out by a hybrid mixture of foreign idioms\nmay well exist side by side with a certain degree of social\nculture.[124]\n\nI have already said that, as each civilization has a special character,\nwe must not be surprised if the poetic and philosophic sense was more\ndeveloped among the Hindus and the Greeks than among ourselves; whereas\nour modern societies are marked rather by their practical, scientific,\nand critical spirit. Taken as a whole, we have more energy and a greater\ngenius for action than the conquerors of Southern Asia and Hellas. On\nthe other hand, we must yield them the first place in the kingdom of\nbeauty, and here our languages naturally mirror our humble position. The\nstyle of the Indian and Ionian writers takes a more powerful flight\ntowards the sphere of the ideal. Language, in fact, while being an\nexcellent index of the general elevation of races, is in a special\ndegree the measure of their \u00e6sthetic capacities. This is the character\nit assumes when we use it as a means of comparing different\ncivilizations.\n\nTo bring out this point further, I will venture to question a view put\nforward by William von Humboldt, that in spite of the obvious\nsuperiority of the Mexican to the Peruvian language, the civilization of\nthe Incas was yet far above that of the people of Anahuac.[125]\n\nThe Peruvian customs were certainly more gentle than the Mexican; and\ntheir religious ideas were as inoffensive as those of Montezuma\u2019s\nsubjects were ferocious. In spite of this, their social condition was\nmarked by far less energy and variety. Their crude despotism never\ndeveloped into more than a dull kind of communism; whereas the Aztec\ncivilization had made various political experiments of great complexity.\nIts military system was far more vigorous; and though the use of writing\nwas equally unknown in both empires, it seems that poetry, history, and\nethics, which were extensively studied at the time of Cortes, would have\nadvanced further in Mexico than in Peru, the institutions of which were\ncoloured by an Epicurean indifferentism that was highly unfavourable to\nintellectual progress. Clearly we must regard the more active people as\nsuperior.\n\nVon Humboldt\u2019s view is simply a consequence of the way in which he\ndefines civilization.[126] Without going over the same ground again, I\nwas yet bound to clear up this point; for if two civilizations had\nreally been able to develop in inverse ratio to the merits of their\nrespective languages, I should have had to give up the idea of any\nnecessary connexion between the intelligence of a people and the value\nof the language spoken by it. But I cannot do this, in view of what I\nhave already said about Greek and Sanscrit, as compared with English,\nFrench, and German.\n\nIt would be, however, a very difficult task to assign a reason, along\nthese lines, for the exact course taken by the language of a hybrid\npeople. We have seldom sufficient knowledge either of the quantity or\nquality of the intermixture of blood to be able properly to trace its\neffects. Yet these racial influences persist, and if they are not\nunravelled, we may easily come to false conclusions. It is just because\nthe connexion between race and language is so close, that it lasts much\nlonger than the political unity of the different peoples, and may be\nrecognized even when the peoples are grouped under new names. The\nlanguage changes with their blood, but does not die out until the last\nfragment of the national life has disappeared. This is the case with\nmodern Greek. Sadly mutilated, robbed of its wealth of grammar,\nimpoverished in the number of its sounds, with the pure stream of its\nvocabulary troubled and muddy, it has none the less retained the impress\nof its original form.[127] In the intellectual world it corresponds to\nthe sullied and deflowered Parthenon, which first became a church for\nthe Greek popes, and then a powder-magazine; which had its pediments and\ncolumns shattered in a thousand places by the Venetian bullets of\nMorosini; but which still stands, for the wonder and adoration of the\nages, as a model of pure grace and unadorned majesty.\n\nNot every race has the power of being faithful to the tongue of its\nancestors. This makes our task still more difficult, when we try to\ndetermine the origin or relative value of different human types by the\nhelp of philology. Not only do languages change without any obvious\nreason, at any rate from the racial point of view; but there are also\ncertain nations which give up their own language altogether, when they\nare brought for some time into contact with a foreign race. This\nhappened, after the conquests of Alexander, in the case of the more\nenlightened nations of Western Asia, such as the Carians, Cappadocians,\nand Armenians. The Gauls are another instance, as I have already said.\nYet all these peoples brought a foreign element into the conquering\ntongue, which was transformed in its turn. Thus they could all be\nregarded as using their own intellectual tools, though to a very\nimperfect extent; while others, more tenacious of theirs, such as the\nBasques, the Berbers of Mount Atlas, and the Ekkhilis of Southern\nArabia, speak even at the present day the same tongue as was spoken by\ntheir most primitive ancestors. But there are certain peoples, the Jews\nfor example, who seem never to have held to their ancestral speech at\nall; and we can discover this indifference from the time of their\nearliest migrations. When Terah left the land of his fathers, Ur of the\nChaldees, he certainly had not learnt the Canaanitish tongue that\nhenceforth became the national speech of the children of Israel. It was\nprobably influenced to some extent by their earlier recollections, and\nin their mouth became a special dialect of the very ancient language\nwhich was the mother of the earliest Arabic we know, and the lawful\ninheritance of tribes closely allied to the black Hamites.[128] Yet not\neven to this language were the Jews to remain faithful. The tribes who\nwere brought back from captivity by Zerubbabel had forgotten it during\ntheir short stay of sixty-two years by the rivers of Babylon. Their\npatriotism was proof against exile, and still burned with its original\nfire; but the rest had been given up, with remarkable facility, by a\npeople which is at the same time jealous of its own traditions and\nextremely cosmopolitan. Jerusalem was rebuilt, and its inhabitants\nreappeared, speaking an Aramaic or Chaldean jargon, which may have had\nsome slight resemblance to the speech of the fathers of Abraham.\n\nAt the time of Christ, this dialect offered only a feeble resistance to\nthe invasion of Hellenistic Greek, which assailed the Jewish mind on all\nsides. Henceforth all the works produced by Jewish writers appeared in\nthe new dress, which fitted them more or less elegantly, and copied to\nsome extent the old Attic fashions. The last canonical books of the Old\nTestament, as well as the works of Philo and Josephus, are Hellenistic\nin spirit.\n\nWhen the Holy City was destroyed, and the Jewish nation scattered, the\nfavour of God departed from them, and the East came again into its own.\nHebrew culture broke with Athens as it had broken with Alexandria, and\nthe language and ideas of the Talmud, the teaching of the school of\nTiberias, were again Semitic, sometimes in the form of Arabic, sometimes\nin that of the \u201clanguage of Canaan,\u201d to use Isaiah\u2019s phrase. I am\nspeaking of what was henceforth to be the sacred language of religion\nand the Rabbis, and was regarded as the true national speech. In their\neveryday life, however, the Jews used the tongue of the country where\nthey settled; and, further, these exiles were known everywhere by their\nspecial accent. They never succeeded in fitting their vocal organs to\ntheir adopted language, even when they had learnt it from childhood.\nThis goes to confirm what William von Humboldt says as to the connexion\nbetween race and language being so close that later generations never\nget quite accustomed to pronounce correctly words that were unknown to\ntheir ancestors.[129]\n\nWhether this be true or not, we have in the Jews a remarkable proof of\nthe fact that one must not always assume, at first sight, a close\nconnexion between a race and its language, for the language may not have\nbelonged to it originally.[130]\n\nWe see how cautiously we must tread if we attempt to infer an identity\nof race from the affinity, or even the resemblance, of languages. Not\nonly have most of the nations of Western Asia and nearly all those of\nSouthern Europe merely adapted the speech of others to their own use,\nwhile leaving its main elements untouched; but there are also some who\nhave taken over languages absolutely foreign to them, to which they have\nmade no contribution whatever. The latter case is certainly rarer, and\nmay even be regarded as an anomaly. But its mere existence is enough to\nmake us very careful in admitting a form of proof in which such\nexceptions are possible. On the other hand, since they _are_ exceptions,\nand are not met with so often as the opposite case, of a national tongue\nbeing preserved for centuries by even a weak nation; since we also see\nhow a language is assimilated to the particular character of the people\nthat has created it, and how its changes are in exact proportion to the\nsuccessive modifications in the people\u2019s blood; since the part played by\na language in forming its derivatives varies with the numerical\nstrength, in the new groups, of the race that speaks it, we may justly\nconclude that no nation can have a language of greater value than\nitself, except under special circumstances. As this point is of\nconsiderable importance, I will try to bring it out by a new line of\nproof.\n\nWe have already seen that the civilization of a composite people does\nnot include all its social classes.[131] The racial influences that were\nat work in the lower strata from the first still go on; and they prevent\nthe directing forces of the national culture from reaching the depths at\nall,\u2014if they do, their action is weak and transitory. In France, about\nfive-eighths of the total population play merely an unwilling and\npassive part in the development of modern European culture, and that\nonly by fits and starts. With the exception of Great Britain, of which\nthe insular position produces a greater unity of type, the proportion is\neven higher in the rest of the Continent. I will speak of France at\ngreater length, as an instance of the exact correspondence between\nlanguage and racial type; for in France we have a particular instance\nthat strikingly confirms our main thesis.\n\nWe know little, or rather we have no real evidence at all, of the phases\nwhich Celtic and rustic Latin[132] passed through before they met and\ncoalesced. Nevertheless, St. Jerome and his contemporary Sulpicius\nSeverus tell us (the former in his \u201cCommentaries\u201d on St. Paul\u2019s Epistle\nto the Galatians, the second in his \u201cDialogue on the virtues of the\nEastern Monks\u201d) that in their time at least two languages were generally\nspoken in Gaul. There was, first, Celtic, which was preserved on the\nbanks of the Rhine in so pure a form, that it remained identical with\nthe language spoken by the Galatians of Asia Minor, who had been\nseparated from their mother country for more than six centuries.[133]\nSecondly, there was the language called \u201cGallic,\u201d which according to a\ncommentator, can only have been a form, already broken down, of Popular\nLatin. This fourth century dialect, while different from the Gallic of\nTreves, was spoken neither in the West nor in Aquitaine. It was found\nonly in the centre and south of what is now France, and was itself\nprobably split up into two great divisions. It is the common source of\nthe currents, more or less Latinized, which were mingled with other\nelements in different proportions, and formed later the _langue d\u2019oil_\nand the _lingua romana_, in the narrower sense. I will speak first of\nthe latter.\n\nIn order to bring it into being, all that was necessary was a slight\nalteration in the vocabulary of Latin, and the introduction of a few\nsyntactical notions borrowed from Celtic and other languages till then\nunknown in the West of Europe. The Imperial colonies had brought in a\nfair number of Italian, African, and Asiatic elements. The Burgundian,\nand especially the Gothic, invasions added another, which was marked by\nconsiderable harmony, liveliness, and sonority. Its vocabulary was\nfurther increased after the inroads of the Saracens. Thus the _lingua\nromana_ became, in its rhythmic quality, quite distinct from Gallic, and\nsoon assumed a character of its own. It is true that we do not find this\nin its perfection, in the \u201cOath of the Sons of Ludwig the Pious,\u201d as we\ndo later in the poems of Raimbaut de Vaqueiras or Bertran de Born.[134]\nYet even in the \u201cOath\u201d we can recognize the language for what it is; it\nhas already acquired its main features, and its future path is clearly\nmapped out. It formed henceforth (in its different dialects of Limousin,\nProven\u00e7al, and Auvergnat) the speech of a people of as mixed an origin\nas any in the world. It was a refined and supple language, witty,\nbrilliant, and satirical, but without depth or philosophy. It was of\ntinsel rather than gold, and had never been able to do more than pick up\na few ingots on the surface of the rich mines that lay open to it.\nWithout any serious principles, it was destined to remain an instrument\nof indifference, of universal scepticism and mockery. It did not fail to\nbe used as such. The people cared for nothing but pleasure and parade.\nBrave to a fault, beyond measure gay, spending their passion on a dream,\nand their vitality on idle toys, they had an instrument that was exactly\nsuited to their character, and which, though admired by Dante, was put\nto no better use in poetry than to tag satires, love-songs, and\nchallenges, and in religion to support heresies such as that of the\nAlbigenses, a pestilent Manicheism, without value even for literature,\nfrom which an English author, in no way Catholic in his sympathies,\ncongratulates the Papacy on having delivered the Middle Ages.[135] Such\nwas the _lingua romana_ of old, and such do we find it even to-day. It\nis pretty rather than beautiful, and shows on the surface how little it\nis fitted to serve a great civilization.\n\nWas the _langue d\u2019oil_ formed in a similar way? Obviously not. However\nthe Celtic, Latin, and Germanic elements were fused (for we cannot be\ncertain on this point, in the absence of records going back to the\nearliest period of the language[136]), it is at any rate clear that it\nrose from a strongly marked antagonism between the three tongues, and\nthat it would thus have a character and energy quite incompatible with\nsuch compromises and adaptations as those which gave birth to the\n_lingua romana_. In one moment of its life, the _langue d\u2019oil_ was\npartly a Germanic tongue. In the written remains that have survived, we\nfind one of the best qualities of the Aryan languages, the power of\nforming compounds. This power, it is true, is limited; and though still\nconsiderable, is less than in Sanscrit, Greek, and German. In the nouns,\nwe find a system of inflexion by suffix, and, in consequence, an ease in\ninverting the order which modern French has lost, and which the language\nof the sixteenth century retained only to a slight extent, its\ninversions being gained at the expense of clearness. Again, the\nvocabulary of the _langue d\u2019oil_ included many words brought in by the\nFranks.[137] Thus it began by being almost as much Germanic as Gallic;\nCeltic elements appeared in its second stage, and perhaps fixed the\nmelodic principles of the language. The best possible tribute to its\nmerits is to be found in the successful experiment of Littr\u00e9,[138] who\ntranslated the first book of the \u201cIliad\u201d literally, line for line, into\nFrench of the thirteenth century. Such a _tour de force_ would be\nimpossible in modern French.\n\nSuch a language belonged to a people that was evidently very different\nfrom the inhabitants of Southern Gaul. It was more deeply attached to\nCatholicism; its politics were permeated by a lively idea of freedom,\ndignity, and independence, its institutions had no aim but utility. Thus\nthe mission set before the popular literature was not to express the\nfancies of the mind or heart, the freakishness of a universal\nscepticism, but to put together the annals of the nation, and to set\ndown what was at that time regarded as the truth. It is to this temper\nof the people and their language that we owe the great rhymed\nchronicles, especially \u201cGarin le Loherain,\u201d which bear witness, though\nit has since been denied, to the predominance of the North.\nUnfortunately, since the compilers of these traditions, and even their\noriginal authors, mainly aimed at preserving historical facts or\nsatisfying their desire for positive and solid results, poetry in the\ntrue sense, the love of form and the search for beauty, does not always\nbulk as large as it should in their long narratives. The literature of\nthe _langue d\u2019oil_ was, above all, utilitarian; and so the race, the\nlanguage, and the literature were in perfect harmony.\n\nThe Germanic element in the race, however, being far less than the\nGallic basis or the Roman accretions, naturally began to lose ground.\nThe same thing took place in the language; Celtic and Latin advanced,\nGermanic retreated. That noble speech, which we know only at its highest\nstage, and which might have risen even higher, began to decline and\nbecome corrupted towards the end of the thirteenth century. In the\nfifteenth, it was no more than a patois, from which the Germanic\nelements had completely disappeared. The treasury was exhausted; and\nwhat remained was an illogical and barbarous anomaly in the midst of the\nprogress of Celtic and Latin. Thus in the sixteenth century the revival\nof classical studies found the language in ruins, and tried to remodel\nit on the lines of Greek and Latin. This was the professed aim of the\nwriters of this great age. They did not succeed, and the seventeenth\ncentury, wisely seeing that the irresistible march of events could in no\nwise be curbed by the hand of man, set itself merely to improve the\nlanguage from within; for every day it was assuming more and more the\nforms best suited to the dominant race, the forms, in other words, into\nwhich the grammatical life of Celtic had formerly been cast.\n\nAlthough both the _langue d\u2019oil_ and French proper are marked by a\ngreater unity than the _lingua romana_ (since the mixture of races and\nlanguages that gave birth to them was less complex) yet they have\nproduced separate dialects which survive to this day. It is not doing\nthese too much honour to call them dialects, not patois. They arose, not\nfrom the corruption of the dominant type, with which they were at least\ncontemporary, but from the different proportions in which the Celtic,\nLatin, and Germanic elements, that still make up the French nationality,\nwere mingled. To the north of the Seine, we find the dialect of Picardy;\nthis is, in vocabulary and rhythmic quality, very near Flemish, of which\nthe Germanic character is too obvious to be dwelt upon. Flemish, in this\nrespect, shows the same power of choice as the _langue d\u2019oil_, which\ncould in a certain poem, without ceasing to be itself, admit forms and\nexpressions taken bodily from the language spoken at Arras.[139]\n\nAs we go south of the Seine towards the Loire, the Celtic elements in\nthe provincial dialects grow more numerous. In Burgundian, and the\ndialects of Vaud and Savoy, even the vocabulary has many traces of\nCeltic; these are not found in French, where the predominant factor is\nrustic Latin.[140]\n\nI have shown above[141] how from the sixteenth century the influence of\nthe north had given ground before the growing preponderance of the\npeoples beyond the Loire. The reader has merely to compare the present\nsections on language with my former remarks on blood to see how close is\nthe relation between the speech of a people and its physical\nconstitution.[142]\n\nI have dealt in detail with the special case of France, but the\nprinciple could easily be illustrated from the rest of Europe; and it\nwould be seen, as a universal rule, that the successive changes and\nmodifications of a language are not, as one usually hears, the work of\ncenturies. If they were, Ekkhili, Berber, Euskara, and Bas-Breton would\nlong have disappeared; and yet they still survive. The changes in\nlanguage are caused by corresponding changes in the blood of successive\ngenerations, and the parallelism is exact.\n\nI must here explain a phenomenon to which I have already referred,\nnamely the renunciation by certain racial groups (under pressure of\nspecial necessity, or their own nature) of their native tongue in favour\nof one which is more or less foreign to them. I took the Jews and the\nParsees as examples. There are others more remarkable still; for we\nfind, in America, savage tribes speaking languages superior to\nthemselves.\n\nIn America, by a curious stroke of fate, the most energetic nations have\ndeveloped, so to speak, in secret. The art of writing was unknown to\nthem, and their history proper begins very late and is nearly always\nvery obscure. The New World contains a great number of peoples which,\nthough they are neighbours and derive in different directions from a\ncommon origin, have very little resemblance to each other.\n\nAccording to d\u2019Orbigny, the so-called \u201cChiquitean group\u201d in Central\nAmerica is composed of tribes, of which the largest contain about 1500\nsouls, and the least numerous 50 and 300. All these, even the smallest,\nhave distinct languages. Such a state of things can only be the result\nof a complete racial anarchy.\n\nOn this hypothesis, I am not at all surprised to see many of these\ntribes, like the Chiquitos, in possession of a complicated and\napparently scientific language. The words used by the men are sometimes\ndifferent from those of the women; and in every case when a man borrows\none of the women\u2019s phrases, he changes the terminations. Where such\nluxury in vocabulary is possible, the language has surely reached a very\nrefined stage. Unfortunately, side by side with this we find that the\ntable of numerals does not go much further than ten. Such poverty, in\nthe midst of so much careful elaboration, is probably due to the\nravaging hand of time, aided by the barbarous condition of the natives\nto-day. When we see anomalies like these, we cannot help recalling the\nsumptuous palaces, once marvels of the Renaissance, which have come, by\nsome revolution, into the hands of rude peasants. The eye may rove with\nadmiration over delicate columns, elegant trellis-work, sculptured\nporches, noble staircases, and striking gables\u2014luxuries which are\nuseless to the wretchedness that lives under them; for the ruined roofs\nlet in the rain, the floors crack, and the worm eats into the mouldering\nwalls.\n\nI can now say with certainty that, with regard to the special character\nof races, philology confirms all the facts of physiology and history.\nIts conclusions however must be handled with extreme care, and when they\nare all we have to go upon, it is very dangerous to rest content with\nthem. Without the slightest doubt, a people\u2019s language corresponds to\nits mentality, but not always to its real value for civilization. In\norder to ascertain this, we must fix our eyes solely on the race by\nwhich, and for which, the language was at first designed. Now with the\nexception of the negroes, and a few yellow groups, we meet only\nquaternary races in recorded history. All the languages we know are thus\nderivative, and we cannot gain the least idea of the laws governing\ntheir formation except in the comparatively later stages. Our results,\neven when confirmed by history, cannot be regarded as infallibly proved.\nThe further we go back, the dimmer becomes the light, and the more\nhypothetical the nature of any arguments drawn from philology. It is\nexasperating to be thrown back on these when we try to trace the\nprogress of any human family or to discover the racial elements that\nmake it up. We know that Sanscrit and Zend are akin. That is something;\nbut their common roots are sealed to us. The other ancient tongues are\nin the same case. We know nothing of Euskara except itself. As no\nanalogue to it has been discovered up to now, we are ignorant of its\nhistory, and whether it is to be regarded as itself primitive or\nderived. It yields us no positive knowledge as to whether the people who\nspeak it are racially simple or composite.\n\nEthnology may well be grateful for the help given by philology. But the\nhelp must not be accepted unconditionally, or any theories based on it\nalone.[143]\n\nThis rule is dictated by a necessary prudence. All the facts, however,\nmentioned in this chapter go to prove that, originally, there is a\nperfect correspondence between the intellectual virtues of a race and\nthose of its native speech; that languages are, in consequence, unequal\nin value and significance, unlike in their forms and basic elements, as\nraces are also; that their modifications, like those of races, come\nmerely from intermixture with other idioms; that their qualities and\nmerits, like a people\u2019s blood, disappear or become absorbed, when they\nare swamped by too many heterogeneous elements; finally, that when a\nlanguage of a higher order is used by some human group which is unworthy\nof it, it will certainly become mutilated and die out. Hence, though it\nis often difficult to infer at once, in a particular case, the merits of\na people from those of its language, it is quite certain that in theory\nthis can always be done.\n\nI may thus lay it down, as a universal axiom, that the hierarchy of\nlanguages is in strict correspondence with the hierarchy of races.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XVI\nRECAPITULATION; THE RESPECTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE THREE GREAT RACES;\n THE SUPERIORITY OF THE WHITE TYPE, AND, WITHIN THIS TYPE, OF THE ARYAN\n                                 FAMILY\n\n\nI have shown the unique place in the organic world occupied by the human\nspecies, the profound physical, as well as moral, differences separating\nit from all other kinds of living creatures. Considering it by itself, I\nhave been able to distinguish, on physiological grounds alone, three\ngreat and clearly marked types, the black, the yellow, and the white.\nHowever uncertain the aims of physiology may be, however meagre its\nresources, however defective its methods, it can proceed thus far with\nabsolute certainty.\n\nThe negroid variety is the lowest, and stands at the foot of the ladder.\nThe animal character, that appears in the shape of the pelvis, is\nstamped on the negro from birth, and foreshadows his destiny. His\nintellect will always move within a very narrow circle. He is not\nhowever a mere brute, for behind his low receding brow, in the middle of\nhis skull, we can see signs of a powerful energy, however crude its\nobjects. If his mental faculties are dull or even non-existent, he often\nhas an intensity of desire, and so of will, which may be called\nterrible. Many of his senses, especially taste and smell, are developed\nto an extent unknown to the other two races.[144]\n\nThe very strength of his sensations is the most striking proof of his\ninferiority. All food is good in his eyes, nothing disgusts or repels\nhim. What he desires is to eat, to eat furiously, and to excess; no\ncarrion is too revolting to be swallowed by him. It is the same with\nodours; his inordinate desires are satisfied with all, however coarse or\neven horrible. To these qualities may be added an instability and\ncapriciousness of feeling, that cannot be tied down to any single\nobject, and which, so far as he is concerned, do away with all\ndistinctions of good and evil. We might even say that the violence with\nwhich he pursues the object that has aroused his senses and inflamed his\ndesires is a guarantee of the desires being soon satisfied and the\nobject forgotten. Finally, he is equally careless of his own life and\nthat of others: he kills willingly, for the sake of killing; and this\nhuman machine, in whom it is so easy to arouse emotion, shows, in face\nof suffering, either a monstrous indifference or a cowardice that seeks\na voluntary refuge in death.\n\nThe yellow race is the exact opposite of this type. The skull points\nforward, not backward. The forehead is wide and bony, often high and\nprojecting. The shape of the face is triangular, the nose and chin\nshowing none of the coarse protuberances that mark the negro. There is\nfurther a general proneness to obesity, which, though not confined to\nthe yellow type, is found there more frequently than in the others. The\nyellow man has little physical energy, and is inclined to apathy; he\ncommits none of the strange excesses so common among negroes. His\ndesires are feeble, his will-power rather obstinate than violent; his\nlonging for material pleasures, though constant, is kept within bounds.\nA rare glutton by nature, he shows far more discrimination in his choice\nof food. He tends to mediocrity in everything; he understands easily\nenough anything not too deep or sublime.[145] He has a love of utility\nand a respect for order, and knows the value of a certain amount of\nfreedom. He is practical, in the narrowest sense of the word. He does\nnot dream or theorize; he invents little, but can appreciate and take\nover what is useful to him. His whole desire is to live in the easiest\nand most comfortable way possible. The yellow races are thus clearly\nsuperior to the black. Every founder of a civilization would wish the\nbackbone of his society, his middle class, to consist of such men. But\nno civilized society could be created by them; they could not supply its\nnerve-force, or set in motion the springs of beauty and action.\n\nWe come now to the white peoples. These are gifted with reflective\nenergy, or rather with an energetic intelligence. They have a feeling\nfor utility, but in a sense far wider and higher, more courageous and\nideal, than the yellow races; a perseverance that takes account of\nobstacles and ultimately finds a means of overcoming them; a greater\nphysical power, an extraordinary instinct for order, not merely as a\nguarantee of peace and tranquillity, but as an indispensable means of\nself-preservation. At the same time, they have a remarkable, and even\nextreme, love of liberty, and are openly hostile to the formalism under\nwhich the Chinese are glad to vegetate, as well as to the strict\ndespotism which is the only way of governing the negro.\n\nThe white races are, further, distinguished by an extraordinary\nattachment to life. They know better how to use it, and so, as it would\nseem, set a greater price on it; both in their own persons and those of\nothers, they are more sparing of life. When they are cruel, they are\nconscious of their cruelty; it is very doubtful whether such a\nconsciousness exists in the negro. At the same time, they have\ndiscovered reasons why they should surrender this busy life of theirs,\nthat is so precious to them. The principal motive is honour, which under\nvarious names has played an enormous part in the ideas of the race from\nthe beginning. I need hardly add that the word honour, together with all\nthe civilizing influences connoted by it, is unknown to both the yellow\nand the black man.\n\nOn the other hand, the immense superiority of the white peoples in the\nwhole field of the intellect is balanced by an inferiority in the\nintensity of their sensations. In the world of the senses, the white man\nis far less gifted than the others, and so is less tempted and less\nabsorbed by considerations of the body, although in physical structure\nhe is far the most vigorous.[146]\n\nSuch are the three constituent elements of the human race. I call them\nsecondary types, as I think myself obliged to omit all discussion of the\nAdamite man. From the combination, by intermarriage, of the varieties of\nthese types come the tertiary groups. The quaternary formations are\nproduced by the union of one of these tertiary types, or of a\npure-blooded tribe, with another group taken from one of the two foreign\nspecies.\n\nBelow these categories others have appeared\u2014and still appear. Some of\nthese are very strongly characterized, and form new and distinct points\nof departure, coming as they do from races that have been completely\nfused. Others are incomplete, and ill-ordered, and, one might even say,\nanti-social, since their elements, being too numerous, too disparate, or\ntoo barbarous, have had neither the time nor the opportunity for\ncombining to any fruitful purpose. No limits, except the horror excited\nby the possibility of infinite intermixture, can be assigned to the\nnumber of these hybrid and chequered races that make up the whole of\nmankind.\n\nIt would be unjust to assert that every mixture is bad and harmful. If\nthe three great types had remained strictly separate, the supremacy\nwould no doubt have always been in the hands of the finest of the white\nraces, and the yellow and black varieties would have crawled for ever at\nthe feet of the lowest of the whites. Such a state is so far ideal,\nsince it has never been beheld in history; and we can imagine it only by\nrecognizing the undisputed superiority of those groups of the white\nraces which have remained the purest.\n\nIt would not have been all gain. The superiority of the white race would\nhave been clearly shown, but it would have been bought at the price of\ncertain advantages which have followed the mixture of blood. Although\nthese are far from counterbalancing the defects they have brought in\ntheir train, yet they are sometimes to be commended. Artistic genius,\nwhich is equally foreign to each of the three great types, arose only\nafter the intermarriage of white and black. Again, in the Malayan\nvariety, a human family was produced from the yellow and black races\nthat had more intelligence than either of its ancestors. Finally, from\nthe union of white and yellow, certain intermediary peoples have sprung,\nwho are superior to the purely Finnish tribes as well as to the negroes.\n\nI do not deny that these are good results. The world of art and great\nliterature that comes from the mixture of blood, the improvement and\nennoblement of inferior races\u2014all these are wonders for which we must\nneeds be thankful. The small have been raised. Unfortunately, the great\nhave been lowered by the same process; and this is an evil that nothing\ncan balance or repair. Since I am putting together the advantages of\nracial mixtures, I will also add that to them is due the refinement of\nmanners and beliefs, and especially the tempering of passion and desire.\nBut these are merely transitory benefits, and if I recognize that the\nmulatto, who may become a lawyer, a doctor, or a business man, is worth\nmore than his negro grandfather, who was absolutely savage, and fit for\nnothing, I must also confess that the Brahmans of primitive India, the\nheroes of the Iliad and the Shahnameh, the warriors of Scandinavia\u2014the\nglorious shades of noble races that have disappeared\u2014give us a higher\nand more brilliant idea of humanity, and were more active, intelligent,\nand trusty instruments of civilization and grandeur than the peoples,\nhybrid a hundred times over, of the present day. And the blood even of\nthese was no longer pure.\n\nHowever it has come about, the human races, as we find them in history,\nare complex; and one of the chief consequences has been to throw into\ndisorder most of the primitive characteristics of each type. The good as\nwell as the bad qualities are seen to diminish in intensity with\nrepeated intermixture of blood; but they also scatter and separate off\nfrom each other, and are often mutually opposed. The white race\noriginally possessed the monopoly of beauty, intelligence, and strength.\nBy its union with other varieties, hybrids were created, which were\nbeautiful without strength, strong without intelligence, or, if\nintelligent, both weak and ugly. Further, when the quantity of white\nblood was increased to an indefinite amount by successive infusions, and\nnot by a single admixture, it no longer carried with it its natural\nadvantages, and often merely increased the confusion already existing in\nthe racial elements. Its strength, in fact, seemed to be its only\nremaining quality, and even its strength served only to promote\ndisorder. The apparent anomaly is easily explained. Each stage of a\nperfect mixture produces a new type from diverse elements, and develops\nspecial faculties. As soon as further elements are added, the vast\ndifficulty of harmonizing the whole creates a state of anarchy. The more\nthis increases, the more do even the best and richest of the new\ncontributions diminish in value, and by their mere presence add fuel to\nan evil which they cannot abate. If mixtures of blood are, to a certain\nextent, beneficial to the mass of mankind, if they raise and ennoble it,\nthis is merely at the expense of mankind itself, which is stunted,\nabased, enervated, and humiliated in the persons of its noblest sons.\nEven if we admit that it is better to turn a myriad of degraded beings\ninto mediocre men than to preserve the race of princes whose blood is\nadulterated and impoverished by being made to suffer this dishonourable\nchange, yet there is still the unfortunate fact that the change does not\nstop here; for when the mediocre men are once created at the expense of\nthe greater, they combine with other mediocrities, and from such unions,\nwhich grow ever more and more degraded, is born a confusion which, like\nthat of Babel, ends in utter impotence, and leads societies down to the\nabyss of nothingness whence no power on earth can rescue them.\n\nSuch is the lesson of history. It shows us that all civilizations derive\nfrom the white race, that none can exist without its help, and that a\nsociety is great and brilliant only so far as it preserves the blood of\nthe noble group that created it, provided that this group itself belongs\nto the most illustrious branch of our species.\n\nOf the multitude of peoples which live or have lived on the earth, ten\nalone have risen to the position of complete societies. The remainder\nhave gravitated round these more or less independently, like planets\nround their suns. If there is any element of life in these ten\ncivilizations that is not due to the impulse of the white races, any\nseed of death that does not come from the inferior stocks that mingled\nwith them, then the whole theory on which this book rests is false. On\nthe other hand, if the facts are as I say, then we have an irrefragable\nproof of the nobility of our own species. Only the actual details can\nset the final seal of truth on my system, and they alone can show with\nsufficient exactness the full implications of my main thesis, that\npeoples degenerate only in consequence of the various admixtures of\nblood which they undergo; that their degeneration corresponds exactly to\nthe quantity and quality of the new blood, and that the rudest possible\nshock to the vitality of a civilization is given when the ruling\nelements in a society and those developed by racial change have become\nso numerous that they are clearly moving away from the homogeneity\nnecessary to their life, and it therefore becomes impossible for them to\nbe brought into harmony and so acquire the common instincts and\ninterests, the common logic of existence, which is the sole\njustification for any social bond whatever. There is no greater curse\nthan such disorder, for however bad it may have made the present state\nof things, it promises still worse for the future.\n\n\nNOTE.\u2014The \u201cten civilizations\u201d mentioned in the last paragraph are as\nfollows. They are fully discussed in the subsequent books of the\n\u201cInequality of Races,\u201d of which the present volume forms the first.\n\nI. The Indian civilization, which reached its highest point round the\nIndian Ocean, and in the north and east of the Indian Continent,\nsouth-east of the Brahmaputra. It arose from a branch of a white people,\nthe Aryans.\n\nII. The Egyptians, round whom collected the Ethiopians, the Nubians, and\na few smaller peoples to the west of the oasis of Ammon. This society\nwas created by an Aryan colony from India, that settled in the upper\nvalley of the Nile.\n\nIII. The Assyrians, with whom may be classed the Jews, the Ph\u0153nicians,\nthe Lydians, the Carthaginians, and the Hymiarites. They owed their\ncivilizing qualities to the great white invasions which may be grouped\nunder the name of the descendants of Shem and Ham. The Zoroastrian\nIranians who ruled part of Central Asia under the names of Medes,\nPersians, and Bactrians, were a branch of the Aryan family.\n\nIV. The Greeks, who came from the same Aryan stock, as modified by\nSemitic elements.\n\nV. The Chinese civilization, arising from a cause similar to that\noperating in Egypt. An Aryan colony from India brought the light of\ncivilization to China also. Instead however of becoming mixed with black\npeoples, as on the Nile, the colony became absorbed in Malay and yellow\nraces, and was reinforced, from the north-west, by a fair number of\nwhite elements, equally Aryan but no longer Hindu.\n\nVI. The ancient civilization of the Italian peninsula, the cradle of\nRoman culture. This was produced by a mixture of Celts, Iberians,\nAryans, and Semites.\n\nVII. The Germanic races, which in the fifth century transformed the\nWestern mind. These were Aryans.\n\nVIII.\u2013X. The three civilizations of America, the Alleghanian, the\nMexican, and the Peruvian.\n\nOf the first seven civilizations, which are those of the Old World, six\nbelong, at least in part, to the Aryan race, and the seventh, that of\nAssyria, owes to this race the Iranian Renaissance, which is,\nhistorically, its best title to fame. Almost the whole of the Continent\nof Europe is inhabited at the present time by groups of which the basis\nis white, but in which the non-Aryan elements are the most numerous.\nThere is no true civilization, among the European peoples, where the\nAryan branch is not predominant.\n\nIn the above list no negro race is seen as the initiator of a\ncivilization. Only when it is mixed with some other can it even be\ninitiated into one.\n\nSimilarly, no spontaneous civilization is to be found among the yellow\nraces; and when the Aryan blood is exhausted stagnation supervenes.\n\n\n\n\n                                 INDEX\n\n\n Abraham, 123\n\n Abu-Hanifah, 123\n\n Achaemenidae, 176\n\n Adair, 72\n\n Adam, 118\u20139, 145\n\n \u00c6schylus, 14, 99\n\n Agrippa, 17\n\n Albigenses, 198\n\n Alc\u00e6us, 94\n\n Alexander the Great, 44, 175\u20136, 193\n\n Alexandria, 61\n\n Alexandrians, 38, 176\n\n Algiers, 171\n\n Alleghany race, 71, 172\n\n Altaic languages, 183\n\n Altai Mountains, 128, 141\n\n Amalfi, 61\n\n America, Anglo-Saxons of North, 39, 71, 160 _n._\n\n Anabaptists, 20\n\n Anaxagoras, 14\n\n Ancorso, 143\n\n Andes, 115\n\n Anglo-Saxons, 30, 69\n\n Annam, 164\n\n Anne, Queen, 42\n\n Antilles, 50\n\n Antioch, 60\n\n Antonines, 15\n\n Antoninus Pius, 11\n\n Anubis, 66\n\n Apollo, 108\u20139\n\n Appius Claudius, 9\n\n Arabs, 21, 58, 122\u20135, 177\u20139\n\n Aral, Lake, 128\n\n Aramaic, 194\n\n Aranda, Count of, 52\n\n Ararat, Mount, 142\n\n Araucans, 119\n\n Arbela, 33\n\n Arcadia, 59\n\n Arginus\u00e6, 158\n\n Aristophanes, 14, 157\n\n Aristotle, 166\n\n Arkansas, 71\n\n Armagnacs, 12\n\n Armenians, 58, 193\n\n Arsacid\u00e6, 177\n\n Artibonite, 48\n\n Aryan languages, 183, 188, 199\n\n Aryavarta, 32\n\n Aseddin, 129\n\n Ashik-Pacha-Zadeh, 130 _n._\n\n Aspasia, 14\n\n Assyria, 2, 7, 56, 79\n\n Assyrians, 87, 126\n\n Athene, 94\n\n Athenians, 7;\n   religion, 13, 17;\n   art and politics, 157\u20138\n\n Athens, 59, 104\n\n Atlas, Mount, 141\n\n Attila, 132\n\n Aurelian, 17\n\n Auvergne, 121\n\n Aymaras, 85\n\n Aztecs, 8, 13, 192\n\n\n Baber, 129 _n._\n\n Babylon, 10, 194\n\n Bagdad, 178\n\n Baker, 137\u20138\n\n Bala\u00efbalan, 188\n\n Bambaras, 180\n\n Barrow, 121 _n._\n\n Basques, 194\n\n Belgium, 92, 99\n\n Berbers, 194, 201\n\n Berlin, climate of, 38\n\n Bernard, St., 69\n\n Bichat, 24\n\n Birman, 190\n\n Blumenbach, 109\u201310, 119, 146\n\n B\u0153otia, 59\n\n Bordeaux, 60\n\n Born, Bertran de, 197\n\n Bossuet, 12\n\n Brahmans, 32, 65;\n   civilization, 83, 97, 209;\n   religion, 142;\n   pacifism, 161\n\n Brazil, 125 _n._\n\n Bremen, 60\n\n Breton, language, 201\n\n Brittany, 17, 44, 101 _n._\n\n Buddhists, 65, 97\n\n Burgundian, 201\n\n Bushmen, 187\n\n\n Caciques, 171\n\n Cadiz, 150\n\n C\u00e6sar, Julius, 15, 158\n\n Calabrians, 121\n\n Calvinists, 41\n\n Camper, 108\u201310\n\n Canaries, 144, 155\n\n Cappadocians, 193\n\n Capri, 60\n\n Carians, 193\n\n Caroline Islands, 173\n\n Carthage, 13\n\n Carthaginians, 35, 38, 66, 79\n\n Carus, 54 _n._, 74 _n._, 111\u20134, 149\n\n Catalans, 92\n\n Catawhas, 172\n\n Cato, 158\n\n Catullus, 166\n\n Caucasian, 119, 146\n\n Caucasus, 127, 141\u20132, 187\n\n Celtic languages, 189\u201390, 196\u2013201\n\n Celts, 32, 35, 172\n\n Chagres, 61\n\n Charlemagne, 150\n\n Charles I, of England, 41;\n   VII, of France, 43\n\n Cherokees, 69, 71\u20132, 74, 121, 172\n\n China, 7, 20;\n   climate of, 56\u20137\n\n Chinese, 33;\n   as traders, 58;\n   Chinese Christians, 64\u20135;\n   material civilization, 87, 95\u20137;\n   permanent characteristics, 138;\n   language, 184\u20135\n\n Chiquitos, 202\n\n Chlodwig, 160 _n._\n\n Christianity, its fight against paganism, 45;\n   relation to civilization, chap. vii _passim_\n\n Cicero, 158\n\n Cincinnatus, 11\n\n Cingalese, 126\n\n Cirionos, 53\n\n Civilization, Guizot\u2019s definition, 80\u20131;\n   von Humboldt\u2019s definition, 82;\n   Gobineau\u2019s definition, 91;\n   list of \u2014s, 211\u201312\n\n Co-adjutor, 41\n\n Columbus, 144\n\n Confucius, 74 _n._\n\n Constantine, 15\n\n Constantinople, 61, 128, 150\n\n Coptic, 185 _n._\n\n Cordilleras, the, 64\n\n Cordova, 29, 177\n\n Corinth, 59\n\n Coromandel Coast, 122\n\n Cortes, 8, 192\n\n Creeks, 71\n\n Croats, 29\n\n Cuba, 51\n\n Cuvier, 118, 136, 141\n\n Cuzco, 167\n\n Cyrus the Great, 10\n\n\n Dahomey, 48, 85\n\n Damascus, 57\n\n Dante, 198\n\n Darius, 10, 33, 176\n\n Davis, 96\n\n Deccan, 147\n\n Decius, 17\n\n Degeneration, meaning of, 25\n\n Delaware, 190\n\n Delhi, 34\n\n Demeter, 59, 94\n\n Diocletian, 17, 96\n\n Djelat-Eddin-Rumi, 188\n\n Dodona, 175\n\n Draco, 40\n\n Druids, 44\n\n\n Ecbatana, 175\n\n Egypt, 2, 7, 56\n\n Egyptians, 30, 80;\n   civilization, 87;\n   relations with Islam, 178\n\n Ekkhili, 201\n\n England, luxury in, 8;\n   change in institutions, 42\n\n English, as rulers of India, 34;\n   civilization, 81, 92, 97\u2013102\n\n Epicurus, 13\n\n Erie, Lake, 55\n\n Eskimos, 64\u20135, 69, 131\n\n Etruscans, 80, 121\n\n Euhemerus, 16\n\n Euphrates, 56\n\n Europeans, physical and mental characteristics of, 107\u20138 and chaps. x,\n    xii, xvi, _passim_\n\n Euskara, 201, 203\n\n Eve, 119\n\n\n Fabii, 33, 159\n\n Farnese Hercules, 108\n\n Fatimites, 7\n\n Fellatahs, 48\n\n F\u00e9nelon, 12\n\n Ferdinand the Catholic, 41\n\n Finns, 38, 127\u201332, 146\n\n Flourens, 116\n\n France, luxury in, 8;\n   under English rule, 20;\n   change in institutions, 43\n\n Franklin, 180 _n._\n\n Franks, 199\n\n French, civilization of, 81, 92;\n   power of resistance, 152;\n   language, 189, 196\u2013201\n\n\n Galerius, 16\n\n Galla, 67\n\n Gallatin, 72\n\n Gallo-Romans, 11, 197\n\n _Garin le Loherain_, 200\u20131\n\n Gauls, the, independence of, 170\n\n Gayaseddin-Keikosrev, 129\n\n Genesis, Book of, 117\u20138\n\n Genoese, 8, 79\n\n Gerando, 132\n\n Germanic tribes, 87, 91, 93, 128;\n   language, 189\u201390, 198\u20139\n\n Germany, religious wars in, 21\n\n Gioberti, 151\n\n Goethe, 83, 185 _n._\n\n Gothic, 190\n\n Goths, 10, 197\n\n Greece, 2, 7;\n   Christianity in, 17;\n   climate of, 59\n\n Greeks, 8, 10;\n   civilization, 87\u20138, 92, 94;\n   religion, 142;\n   relation to Persians, 174\u20136;\n   language, 191\u20134\n\n Grenada, 29\n\n Grimm, Monsieur de, 49\n\n Guaranis, 52\u20133\n\n Guizot, 77\u201382\n\n Gutenberg, 165\n\n\n Ham, 29, 48\n\n Hamites, 118, 146\n\n Hanover, 92\n\n Hanseatic towns, 60\n\n Harmodius, 10\n\n Hawaii, 47\n\n Hayti, 48\u201351\n\n Hedjaz, 178\n\n Helvetius, 151\n\n Henry IV, of France, 43\n\n Heracles, Tyrian, 66\n\n Hindus, 29\u201330, 76;\n   civilization, 80, 87, 91;\n   age of marriage among, 124\n\n Holbach, Baron, 49\n\n Holland, 92, 99\n\n Homer, 157\n\n Hottentots, 121, 180\n\n Humboldt, A. von, 129 _n._, 132 _n._, 137 _n._, 144 _n._\n\n Humboldt, W. von, 82\u20134, 183 _n._, 187, 192, 195\n\n Hungary, 29\n\n Huns, 132\n\n Huron, 37\n\n Hussites, 20\n\n Hybrids, fertility of, 115\u20137\n\n Hyderabad, 34\n\n\n Iberians, 172\u20133\n\n Ibn Foszlan, 160 _n._\n\n _Iliad_, the, 199, 209\n\n Illyrians, 172\n\n India, 7;\n   government of, by the English, 34;\n   climate, 56\u20137;\n   art, 104\n\n Indians, North-American, _see_ Redskins\n\n Indians, South-American, 171\n\n Ishmael, 122, 177\n\n Isis, 66\n\n Isola Madre, 144\n\n\n Jamaica, 51\n\n James I, of England, 42\n\n Janissaries, 130\n\n Japanese, 64, 80\n\n Japhet, 118\n\n Javanese, 45, 171\n\n Jerome, St., 197\n\n Jesuits, 51\u20133, 68, 125 _n._\n\n Jews, 3, 29;\n   growth, 58\u20139;\n   religion, 66;\n   physical identity, 122\u20133;\n   language, 194\u20135\n\n Jovian, 11\n\n Jud\u00e6a, 13\n\n Julia, 15 _n._\n\n Julian, 16\n\n Jupiter, 13\n\n\n Kabyles, 57\n\n Kaffirs, 85, 180\n\n Kalidasa, 157\n\n Kalmucks, 108\n\n Kamaun, 147\n\n Kamehameha III, 47\n\n Katai Mountains, 128\n\n Kawi, 190\n\n Khalil Chendereli, 130\n\n Khorsabad, 126\n\n Kirghiz-Kasaks, 132\n\n Klemm, 86 _n._\n\n Koran, 123\u20134\n\n Krapff, 125 _n._\n\n Kurds, 29\n\n\n L\u00e6llius, 14\n\n Lahore, 34\n\n Lander, 180\n\n Languedoc, 122\n\n _Langue d\u2019oil_, 197, 199\u2013201\n\n Lapps, 69, 127, 131, 133\n\n Latin, rustic, 196\u20137\n\n Leila, 124\n\n Lenni-Lenapes, 55 _n._, 190\u20131\n\n _Lingua romana_, 189, 197\u20139\n\n Littr\u00e9, 199\n\n London, mixture of races in, 150\n\n Louis XIV, 12, 21, 151\n\n Lucrece, 9\n\n Ludolf, 114 _n._\n\n Lutherans, Danish, 69\n\n Lycurgus, 40, 42\n\n Lyons, 60\n\n\n Macaulay, Lord, 198\n\n Macedonians, the, 30, 175\n\n Magadha, 7\n\n Magi, 13\n\n Magyars, 29, 131\u20133\n\n Malabar, 122\n\n Malays, 58, 111\u20133, 152, 208\n\n Manchus, 20\n\n Manu, Code of, 32\n\n Marcius, Ancus, 15 _n._\n\n Marianne Islands, the, 172\n\n Marseilles, 60\n\n Martial, 166\n\n Martinique, 51\n\n Maximin, 16\n\n Medusa, 109\n\n Meiners, 107 _n._\n\n Memphis, 38\n\n Meru, 142\n\n Mexico, Gulf of, 55\n\n Mieris, 113 _n._\n\n Milan, 60\n\n Mississippi, 71\n\n Missouri, 55\n\n Mohammedans, 51, 177\u20139\n\n Mohammed IV, 130\n\n Mohammed (the Prophet), 177\u20138\n\n Mongols, 20;\n   Mongol Christians, 64;\n   material civilization, 85;\n   physical characteristics, 111\u20135, 150.\n   _See also_ Yellow Races\n\n Montausier, the, 12\n\n Montpellier, 178\n\n Moors, 41\n\n Moravians, 69, 161\n\n Morosini, 193\n\n Morton, 111\n\n Mulattoes, 149, 209\n\n Muskhogees, 172\n\n Mussulmans, _see_ Mohammedans\n\n\n Napoleon, 41, 151\n\n Narbonese Gaul, 44\n\n Narbonne, 60\n\n Natchez, 172\n\n Negroes, incapacity for civilization, 74\u20135;\n   physical and mental characteristics, chaps. x, xii, xvi, _passim_\n\n Nero, 17\n\n Nestorians, 29\n\n Neustria, 133\n\n New Zealanders, 152\n\n Nimroud, 168\n\n Nineveh, 104\n\n Normandy, climate of, 144\n\n Normans, 31, 60\n\n Novgorod, 60\n\n Numidia, 94\n\n Nushirwan, 128 _n._\n\n\n Oceania, 46, 57, 107, 116, 162\n\n Odenathus, 177\n\n Oghuzes, 128\u20139\n\n Olympia, 175\n\n Olympus, Mount, 142\n\n d\u2019Orbigny, 163 _n._, 202\n\n Orenburg, 76\n\n Ortoghrul, 129\n\n Osman, 129\u201330\n\n Osmanlis, 129\u201330\n\n Ostiaks, 127, 133\n\n Othomi, 185 _n._\n\n Owen, 109\u201311\n\n\n Palestine, climate of, 59\n\n Palmyra, 177\n\n Panama, 61\n\n Paraguay, 51\u20133, 125 _n._\n\n Parana, 53\n\n Paris, 10, 43, 60;\n   mixture of races in, 150\n\n Park, Mungo, 180\n\n Parsees, 29\n\n Parthenon, 193\n\n Pathans, 76\n\n Paul, St., 17\n\n Pecheray, 150\n\n Pelagian, 150\n\n Penn, 39\n\n Pericles, 14, 94, 157\n\n Permians, 133\n\n Persepolis, 126, 176\n\n Persians, 8, 13, 29\u201330, 33;\n   relation to Greeks, 174\u20136;\n   relation to Arabs, 178\u20139\n\n Peru, 13, 85\n\n Peruvians, 80, 115;\n   civilization, 167;\n   language, 192\n\n Phil\u00e6, 104\n\n Philip of Macedon, 94\n\n Philip the Arabian, 177\n\n Ph\u0153nicians, 9, 35, 57, 79\n\n Picardy, 201\n\n Piedmont, 87\n\n Pindar, 94, 157\n\n Pisans, 8, 79\n\n Plato, 157, 166\n\n Pliny, 159, 166\n\n Plutarch, 5\n\n Polynesians, 27, 85, 147\n\n Pompeius, 158\n\n Pontus, 7\n\n Postumus, C. Junius, 159\n\n Pr\u00e6torian Guard, 16\n\n Prakriti, 86\n\n Prichard, 8, 73, chap. x _passim_, 123, 125, 137, 146\n\n Prometheus, 142\n\n Purusha, 86\n\n\n Quaternary type, 149\n\n Quichuas, 85, 115\n\n Quito, 167\n\n\n Radack Islands, the, 143\n\n Ravenna, 61\n\n Raynal, Abb\u00e9, 6\n\n Rechabites, 122\n\n Redskins of North America, their treatment, 46;\n   skull-measurement, 111\u20132;\n   exclusiveness, 170\u20131\n\n Regent of France (Anne of Austria), 41\n\n Rocky Mountains, 55\n\n Roman Empire, fall of, 2\u20133, 33\n\n Romans, 8, 9;\n   civilization, 87, 92, 94\u20137;\n   modernity, 158\u20139;\n   diffusion of books among, 166\n\n Rome, luxury in, 8;\n   religion in, 13, 17, 66;\n   climate of, 59\u201360\n\n Rosa, St., 68\n\n Roussillon, 122\n\n Rubens, 113 _n._\n\n R\u00fbm, 129\n\n Russia, 8, 152\n\n Russians, 76\n\n\n de Sacy, 187\n\n Sakuntala, 124\n\n Salsette, 104\n\n Samal, 143\n\n Samoyedes, 27, 85, 127, 131\n\n San Domingo, 48\u201351\n\n Sandwich Islands, 46\u20137\n\n Sanscrit, 188\u201391, 203\n\n Saracens, 197\n\n Sarah, 123\n\n Sassanid\u00e6, 177\n\n Saxons, 29\n\n Scandinavians, 133, 209\n\n Schlotzer, 132\n\n Scilly Isles, 173\n\n Scipio, 14, 35\n\n Scythians, 129 _n._, 133\n\n Seljukians, 129\u201330\n\n Seminoles, 172\n\n Semites, 29, 118, 146\n\n Semitic languages, 184, 188\u20139\n\n Seneca, 161\n\n Septimius Severus, 11\n\n _Shahnameh_, the, 209\n\n Sharuz, 128\n\n Shelley, 37 _n._\n\n Shem, 29\n\n Siamese, 164 _n._\n\n Siculi, 132\n\n Sicyon, 175\n\n Sidon, 57\n\n Slavs, 32, 74, 92\n\n Socrates, 14\n\n Sophocles, 14\n\n Spain, 20; Arabs in, 29\n\n Spaniards, in South America, 46, 52;\n   independence of, 170\n\n Sparta, 59, 175\n\n Spartacus, 159\n\n Spartans, 9, 40, 79\n\n Squier, 55 _n._\n\n St. Bartholomew\u2019s day, 12\n\n Strafford, Earl of, 41\n\n Suetonius, 15 _n._\n\n Sufis, 188\n\n Sulla, 158\n\n Sulpicius Severus, 197\n\n Swabia, 79\n\n Switzerland, 124;\n   climate of, 144\n\n Syria, 79\n\n Syrians, 94, 172, 177\u20139\n\n\n Tacitus, 5, 17\n\n Tahitians, 154\n\n Talmud, 195\n\n Tatars, 146\n\n Tchingiz, 129 _n._\n\n Tenochtitlan, 104\n\n Terah, 194\n\n Teresa, St., 69\n\n Tertiary type, 147\n\n Tertullian, 159\n\n Teutates, 13\n\n Thebaid, 69\n\n Thirty Tyrants, 20\n\n Thucydides, 6\n\n Thuringia, 79\n\n Tiberius, 60\n\n Tibetans, 80, 91, 97\n\n Tigris, 56\n\n Tihuanaco, 167\n\n Tlaxcala, 159\n\n Tocqueville, de, 72 _n._\n\n Toledo, 29\n\n Tonga-Tabu, 154\n\n Tonkin, 164\n\n Toulouse, 60\n\n Touraine, 100 _n._\n\n Trajan, 11, 159\n\n Treves, 60, 197\n\n Tribunate, the, 9\n\n Triptolemus, 59\n\n Tungusians, 117, 127, 133\n\n Turanians, 128\n\n Turkestan, 128\n\n Turkey, 29\n\n Turks, 29, 127\u201331\n\n Tylos, 57\n\n Tyre, 13, 57\n\n\n Ulea, 143\n\n Ulfilas, 190\n\n Ur, 194\n\n Urkan, 130\n\n Uruguay, 53\n\n\n Valentia, 29\n\n Valerius Publicola, 10\n\n Valmiki, 157\n\n Vaqueiras, Raimbaut de, 198\n\n Venetians, 8, 79\n\n Venice, 60\n\n Venus, 108\n\n Virgil, 166\n\n Voltaire, 5\n\n Vrolik, 114\u20135\n\n\n Wallachians, 29, 190\n\n Wanikas, 125 _n._\n\n Washington, 39\n\n White races, definition, 146;\n   _see also_ Europeans\n\n William III, of England, 21, 81\n\n\n Xerxes, 176\n\n\n Yellow races, physical and mental characteristics of, chaps. x, xii,\n    xvi _passim_;\n   definition, 146;\n   _see also_ Mongols\n\n Yemen, 178\n\n Yolofs, 180\n\n Yo-kiao-li, 125 _n._\n\n Yunnan, 87\n\n\n Zama, battle of, 35\n\n Zend, 201\n\n Zeno, 14\n\n Zenobia, 177\n\n Zerubbabel, 194\n\n Zingaris, 124, 195 _n._\n\n Zita, St., 69\n\n Zuleika, 124\n\n\n                               PRINTED AT\n                          THE BALLANTYNE PRESS\n                           LONDON & EDINBURGH\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  See my Introduction to Count Gobineau\u2019s \u201cRenaissance\u201d (Heinemann).\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  This dedication and the following preface apply to the whole work, of\n  which the present volume contains the first book. The remaining books\n  are occupied by a detailed examination of the civilizations mentioned\n  at the end of this volume, and it is of these as well as the present\n  book that the author is thinking, in his preface, when speaking of his\n  imitators. A few passages in the dedication that relate exclusively to\n  these books have been omitted.\u2014Tr.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  Am\u00e9d\u00e9e Thierry, _La Gaule sous l\u2019administration romaine_, vol. i, p.\n  244.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  By C. F. Weber, _Lucani Pharsalia_ (Leipzig, 1828), vol. i, pp. 122\u20133,\n  _note_.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  Prichard, \u201cNatural History of Man.\u201d Dr. Martius is still more\n  explicit. _Cf._ Martius and Spix, _Reise in Brasilien_, vol. i, pp.\n  379\u201380.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  Balzac, _Lettre \u00e0 madame la duchesse de Montausier_.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  The power of the Tribunate was revived after Appius\u2019s decemvirate in\n  450 B.C., but the office had been founded more than forty years\n  before. On the other hand, consular tribunes were first elected after\n  450 (in 445); but the consular tribunate could hardly be described as\n  a \u201cgreat revolution.\u201d The author may be confusing the two\n  tribunates.\u2014Tr.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  _Cp._ Homer, \u201cOdyssey,\u201d XV, 415 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  Augustin Thierry, _R\u00e9cits des temps m\u00e9rovingiens_; see especially the\n  story of Mummolus.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  C\u00e6sar, the democrat and sceptic, knew how to hold language contrary to\n  his opinions when it was necessary. His funeral oration on his aunt is\n  very curious: \u201cOn the mother\u2019s side,\u201d he said, \u201cJulia was descended\n  from kings; on her father\u2019s, from the immortal gods: for the Marcian\n  Reges, whose name her mother bore, were sprung from Ancus Marcius,\n  while Venus is the ancestress of the Julii, the clan to which belongs\n  the family of the C\u00e6sars. Thus in our blood is mingled at the same\n  time the sanctity of kings, who are the mightiest of men, and the\n  awful majesty of the gods, who hold kings themselves in their power\u201d\n  (Suetonius, \u201cJulius,\u201d p. 6). Nothing could be more monarchical; and\n  also, for an atheist, nothing could be more religious.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  Acts xxvi, 24, 28, 31.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  The reader will understand that I am not speaking of the political\n  existence of a centre of sovereignty, but of the life of a whole\n  society, or the span of a whole civilization. The distinction drawn at\n  the beginning of chap. ii must be applied here.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  The celebrated physiologist (1771\u20131802), and author of _L\u2019Anatomie\n  g\u00e9n\u00e9rale_.\u2014Tr.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  This attachment of the Arab tribes to their racial unity shows itself\n  sometimes in a very curious manner. A traveller (M. Fulgence Fresnel,\n  I think) says that at Djiddah, where morals are very lax, the same\n  Bedouin girl who will sell her favours for the smallest piece of money\n  would think herself dishonoured if she contracted a legal marriage\n  with the Turk or European to whom she contemptuously lends herself.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n                                               The man\n         Of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys;\n         Power, like a desolating pestilence,\n         Pollutes whate\u2019er it touches; and obedience,\n         Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth,\n         Makes slaves of men, and of the human frame\n         A mechanized automaton.\n                                           SHELLEY, \u201cQueen Mab.\u201d\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  Anne of Austria, mother of Louis XIV.\u2014Tr.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  The Comte de Saint-Priest, in an excellent article in the _Revue des\n  Deux Mondes_, has rightly shown that the party crushed by Cardinal\n  Richelieu had nothing in common with feudalism or the great\n  aristocratic methods of government. Montmorency, Cinq-Mars, and\n  Marillac tried to overthrow the State merely in order to obtain favour\n  and office for themselves. The great Cardinal was quite innocent of\n  the \u201cmurder of the French nobility,\u201d with which he has been so often\n  reproached.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  A. von Humboldt, _Examen critique de l\u2019histoire de la g\u00e9ographie du\n  nouveau continent_, vol. ii, pp. 129\u201330.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  See the articles of Gustave d\u2019Alaux in the _Revue des deux Mondes_.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n  The colony of San Domingo, before its emancipation, was one of the\n  places where the luxury and refinement of wealth had reached its\n  highest point. It was, to a superior degree, what Havana has become\n  through its commercial activity. The slaves are now free and have set\n  their own house in order. This is the result!\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n  Consult, on this subject, Prichard, d\u2019Orbigny, A. von Humboldt, &c.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n  _See above_, p. 38.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n  Compare Carus, _\u00dcber ungleiche Bef\u00e4higung der verschiedenen\n  Menschheitst\u00e4mme f\u00fcr h\u00f6here geistige Entwickelung_ (Leipzig, 1849), p.\n  96 _et passim_.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n  Prichard, \u201cNatural History of Man,\u201d sec. 37. _See also_ Squier,\n  \u201cObservations on the Aboriginal Monuments of the Mississippi Valley.\u201d\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n  The special construction of these tumuli and the numerous instruments\n  and utensils they contain are occupying the attention of many eminent\n  American antiquaries. It is impossible to doubt the great age of these\n  monuments. Squier is perfectly right in finding a proof of this in the\n  mere fact that the skeletons discovered in the tumuli fall to pieces\n  when brought into the slightest contact with the air, although the\n  conditions for their preservation are excellent, so far as the quality\n  of the soil is concerned. On the other hand, the bodies which lay\n  buried under the cromlechs of Brittany, and which are at least 1800\n  years old, are perfectly firm. Hence we may easily imagine that there\n  is no relation between these ancient inhabitants of the land and the\n  tribes of the present day\u2014the Lenni-Lenapes and others. I must not end\n  this note without praising the industry and resource shown by American\n  scholars in the study of the antiquities of their continent. Finding\n  their labours greatly hindered by the extreme brittleness of the\n  skulls they had exhumed, they discovered, after many abortive\n  attempts, a way of pouring a preparation of bitumen into the bodies,\n  which solidifies at once and keeps the bones from crumbling. This\n  delicate process, which requires infinite care and quickness, seems,\n  as a rule, to be entirely successful.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n  Ancient India required a vast amount of clearing on the part of the\n  first white settlers. _See_ Lassen, _Indische Altertumskunde_, vol. i.\n  As to Egypt, compare Bunsen, _\u00c4gyptens Stelle in der Weltgeschichte_,\n  as to the fertilization of the Fayoum, a vast work executed by the\n  early kings.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n  \u201cThey say that it spontaneously produces wheat, barley, beans, and\n  sesame, and all the edible plants that grow in the plains\u201d\n  (Syncellus).\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n  Salvador, _Histoire des Juifs_.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n  M. Saint-Marc Girardin, in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n  We may cite, on the subject treated in this chapter, the opinion of a\n  learned historian, though it is rather truculent in tone:\n\n  \u201cA large number of writers are convinced that the country makes the\n  people; that the Bavarians or the Saxons were predestined by the\n  nature of the soil to become what they are to-day; that Protestantism\n  does not suit the South, nor Catholicism the North, and so on. Some of\n  the people who interpret history in the light of their meagre\n  knowledge, narrow sympathies, and limited intelligence would like to\n  show that the nation of which we are speaking (the Jews) possessed\n  such and such qualities\u2014whether these gentlemen understand the nature\n  of the qualities or not\u2014merely from having lived in Palestine instead\n  of India or Greece. But if these great scholars, who are so clever in\n  proving everything, would condescend to reflect that the soil of the\n  Holy Land has contained in its limited area very different peoples,\n  with different ideas and religions, and that between these various\n  peoples and their successors at the present day there have been\n  infinite degrees of diversity, although the actual country has\n  remained the same\u2014they would then see how little influence is exerted\n  by material conditions on a nation\u2019s character and civilization.\u201d\n  Ewald, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, vol. i, p. 259.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n  Acts ii, 4, 8, 9\u201311.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n  Apocryphal Gospels: \u201cThe Story of Joseph the Carpenter,\u201d chap. i.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n  Prichard, \u201cNatural History of Man,\u201d sec. 41.\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n  _Ibid._\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n  \u201cSynopsis of the Indian Tribes of North America.\u201d\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n  I have discussed Prichard\u2019s facts without questioning their value. I\n  might, however, have simply denied them, and should have had on my\n  side the weighty authority of A. de Tocqueville, who in his great work\n  on \u201cDemocracy in America\u201d refers to the Cherokees in these words: \u201cThe\n  presence of half-breeds has favoured the very rapid development of\n  European habits among the Indians. The half-breed shares the\n  enlightenment of his father without entirely giving up the savage\n  customs of his mother\u2019s race. He is thus a natural link between\n  civilization and barbarism. Wherever half-breeds exist and multiply we\n  see the savages gradually changing their customs and social\n  conditions\u201d (\u201cDemocracy in America,\u201d vol. iii). De Tocqueville ends by\n  prophesying that although the Cherokees and the Creeks are half-breeds\n  and not natives, as Prichard says, they will nevertheless disappear in\n  a short time through the encroachment of the white race.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n  In discussing the list of remarkable negroes which is given in the\n  first instance by Blumenbach and could easily be supplemented, Carus\n  well says that among the black races there has never been any politics\n  or literature or any developed ideas of art, and that when any\n  individual negroes have distinguished themselves it has always been\n  the result of white influence. There is not a single man among them to\n  be compared, I will not say to one of our men of genius, but to the\n  heroes of the yellow races\u2014for example, Confucius. (Carus, _op. cit._)\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n  W. von Humboldt, _\u00dcber die Kawi-sprache auf der Insel Java_,\n  Introduction, vol. i, p. 37.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n  _I.e._ the world in its second stage of improvement.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n  Klemm (_Allgemeine Kulturgeschichte der Menschheit_) divides the races\n  of men into \u201cactive\u201d and \u201cpassive.\u201d I do not know his book, and so\n  cannot tell if his idea agrees with my own. But it is natural that if\n  we follow the same path we should light upon the same truth.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n  It is also in connexion with these that we find the main cause of the\n  false judgments passed on foreign peoples. Because the externals of\n  their civilization are unlike the corresponding parts of our own, we\n  are often apt to infer hastily that they are either barbarians or of\n  less worth than ourselves. Nothing could be more superficial, and so\n  more doubtful, than a conclusion drawn from such premises.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n  \u201cIt is still only in China that a poor student can offer himself for\n  the Imperial examination and come out a great man. This is a splendid\n  feature of the social organization of the Chinese, and their theory is\n  certainly better than any other. Unfortunately, its application is far\n  from perfect. I am not here referring to the errors of judgment and\n  corruption on the part of the examiners, or even to the sale of\n  literary degrees, an expedient to which the Government is sometimes\n  driven in times of financial stress....\u201d (F. J. Mohl, \u201cAnnual Report\n  of the Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Asiatique,\u201d 1846).\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n  John F. Davis, \u201cThe Chinese\u201d (London, 1840): \u201cThree or four volumes of\n  any ordinary work of the octavo size and shape may be had for a sum\n  equivalent to two shillings. A Canton bookseller\u2019s manuscript\n  catalogue marked the price of the four books of Confucius, including\n  the commentary, at a price rather under half-a-crown. The cheapness of\n  their common literature is occasioned partly by the mode of printing,\n  but partly also by the low price of paper.\u201d\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n  \u201cForce them to enter.\u201d\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n  A nurse of Touraine put a bird into the hands of the three-year-old\n  boy of whom she was in charge, and encouraged him to pull out its\n  wings and feathers. When the parents blamed her for teaching such\n  wickedness, she replied, \u201cIt is to make him proud.\u201d This answer, given\n  in 1847, goes back directly to the educational maxims in vogue at the\n  time of Vercingetorix.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n  A very few years ago there was a question of electing a churchwarden\n  in a little obscure parish of French Brittany, that part of the old\n  province which the true Bretons call the \u201cWelsh,\u201d or \u201cforeign,\u201d\n  country. The church council, composed of peasants, deliberated for two\n  days without being able to make up their minds; for the candidate\n  before them, though rich and well esteemed as a good man and a good\n  Christian, was a \u201cforeigner.\u201d The council would not move from its\n  opinion, although the \u201cforeigner\u2019s\u201d father, as well as himself, had\n  been born in the district; it was still remembered that his\n  grandfather, who had been dead for many years and had never known any\n  member of the council, was an immigrant from another part of the\n  country. The daughter of a peasant-proprietor makes a _m\u00e9salliance_ if\n  she marries a tailor or a miller or even a farmer, if he works for\n  wages. It does not matter whether the husband is richer than she is;\n  her crime is often punished, just the same, by a father\u2019s curse. Is\n  not this case exactly like that of the churchwarden?\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n  This chapter was, of course, written before the appearance of the\n  \u201cOrigin of Species\u201d or the \u201cDescent of Man\u201d; see author\u2019s preface.\u2014Tr.\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n  These views are quoted by Flourens (_Eloge de Blumenbach_, _M\u00e9moire de\n  l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie des Sciences_), who himself dissents from them.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n  This and the other illustrations in this chapter are taken from\n  Prichard, \u201cNatural History of Man.\u201d\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n  Meiners was so struck with the repulsive appearance of the greater\n  part of humanity that he imagined a very simple system of\n  classification, containing only two categories\u2014the _beautiful_, namely\n  the white race, and the _ugly_, which includes all the others\n  (_Grundriss der Geschichte der Menschheit_). The reader will see that\n  I have not thought it necessary to go through all the ethnological\n  theories. I only mention the most important.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n  Prichard, _op. cit._ (2nd edition, 1845), p. 112.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n  Prichard, p. 116.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n  _Ibid._, pp. 117\u201318.\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n  Carus, _op. cit._, from which the following details are taken.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n  There are some apparently trivial differences which are, however, very\n  characteristic. A certain fullness at the side of the lower lip, that\n  we see among Germans and English, is an example. This mark of Germanic\n  origin may also be found in some faces of the Flemish School, in the\n  Rubens _Madonna_ at Dresden, in the _Satyrs and Nymphs_ in the same\n  collection, in a _Lute-player_ of Mieris, &c. No craniological method\n  can take account of such details, though they have a certain\n  importance, in view of the mixed character of our races.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n  Job Ludolf, whose data on this subject were necessarily very\n  incomplete and inferior to those we have now, is none the less opposed\n  to the opinion accepted by Prichard. His remarks on the black race are\n  striking and unanswerable, and I cannot resist the pleasure of quoting\n  them: \u201cIt is not my purpose to speak here about the blackness of the\n  Ethiop; most people may, if they will, attribute it to the heat of the\n  sun and the torrid zone. Yet even within the sun\u2019s equatorial path\n  there are peoples who, if not white, are at least not quite black.\n  Many who live outside either tropic are further from the Equator than\n  the Persians or Syrians\u2014for instance, the inhabitants of the Cape of\n  Good Hope, who, however, are absolutely black. If you say that\n  blackness belongs solely to Africa and the sons of Ham, you must still\n  allow that the Malabars and the Cingalese and other even more remote\n  peoples of Asia are equally black. If you regard the climate and soil\n  as the reason, then why do not white men become black when they settle\n  down in these regions? If you take refuge in \u2018hidden qualities,\u2019 you\n  would do better to confess your ignorance at once\u201d (Jobus Ludolfus,\n  _Commentarium ad Historiam \u00c6thiopicam_). I will add a short and\n  conclusive passage of Mr. Pickering. He speaks of the regions\n  inhabited by the black race in these words: \u201cExcluding the northern\n  and southern extremes, with the tableland of Abyssinia, it holds all\n  the _more temperate_ and fertile parts of the Continent.\u201d Thus it is\n  just where we find most of the pure negroes that it is least hot ...\n  (Pickering, \u201cThe Races of Man and their Geographical Distribution.\u201d\n  The essay is to be found in the \u201cRecords of the United States\u2019\n  Exploring Expedition during the Years 1838\u201342,\u201d vol. ix).\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n  Prichard, p. 124.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n  Neither the Swiss nor the Tyrolese, nor the Highlanders of Scotland,\n  nor the Balkan Slavs, nor the Himalaya tribes have the same hideous\n  appearance as the Quichuas.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n  _Annales du Mus\u00e9um_, vol. xi, p. 458.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n  The unitarians are continually bringing forward comparisons between\n  man and the animals in support of their theory; I have just been using\n  such a line of argument myself. It only applies, however, within\n  limits, and I could not honestly avail myself of it in speaking of the\n  modification of species by climate. In this respect the difference\n  between man and the animals is radical and (one might almost say)\n  specific. There is a geography of animals, as there is of plants; but\n  there is no geography of man. It is only in certain latitudes that\n  certain vegetables, mammals, reptiles, fishes, and molluscs can exist;\n  man, in all his varieties, can live equally well everywhere. In the\n  case of the animals this fully explains a vast number of differences\n  in organization; and I can easily believe that the species that cannot\n  cross a certain meridian or rise to a certain height above sea-level\n  without dying are very dependent upon the influence of climate and\n  quick to betray its effects in their forms and instincts. It is just,\n  however, because man is absolutely free from such bondage that I\n  refuse to be always comparing his position, in face of the forces of\n  nature, with that of the animals.\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n  Barrow is the author of this theory, which he bases on certain points\n  of resemblance in the shape of the head and the yellowish colour of\n  the skin in the natives of the Cape of Good Hope. A traveller, whose\n  name I forget, has even brought additional evidence by observing that\n  the Hottentots usually wear a head-dress like the conical hat of the\n  Chinese.\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n  M\u00fcller, _Handbuch der Physiologie des Menschen_, vol. ii, p. 639.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n  Prichard, \u201cNatural History of Man,\u201d 2nd edition, pp. 484 _et sqq._\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n  Genesis xxi, 5.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n  We must make an exception in the case of Shakespeare, who is painting\n  a picture of Italy. Thus in _Romeo and Juliet_ Capulet says:\n\n             \u201cMy child is yet a stranger in the world,\n             She hath not seen the change of fourteen years;\n             Let two more summers wither in their pride\n             Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride.\u201d\n\n  To which Paris answers:\n\n                \u201cYounger than she are happy mothers made.\u201d\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n  According to Krapff, a Protestant missionary in East Africa, the\n  Wanikas marry at twelve, boys and girls alike (_Zeitschrift der\n  Deutschen Morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, vol. iii, p. 317). In\n  Paraguay the Jesuits introduced the custom, which still holds among\n  their disciples, of marrying the boys at thirteen and the girls at\n  ten. Widows of eleven and twelve are to be seen in this country (A.\n  d\u2019Orbigny, _L\u2019Homme am\u00e9ricain_, vol. i, p. 40). In South Brazil the\n  women marry at ten or eleven. Menstruation both appears and ceases at\n  an early age (Martius and Spix, _Reise in Brasilien_ vol. i, p. 382).\n  Such quotations might be infinitely extended; I will only cite one\n  more. In the novel of Yo-kiao-Li the Chinese heroine is sixteen years\n  old, and her father is in despair that at such an age she is not yet\n  married!\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n  Prichard, p. 486.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n  It has been since discovered that this fairness, in certain Jews, is\n  due to a mixture of Tartar blood; in the 9th century a tribe of\n  Chasars went over to Judaism and intermarried with the German-Polish\n  Jews (Kutschera, _Die Chasaren_).\u2014Tr.\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n  _Edinburgh Review_, \u201cEthnology or the Science of Races,\u201d October 1848,\n  pp. 444\u20138: \u201cThere is probably no evidence of original diversity of\n  race which is so generally relied upon as that derived from the\n  _colour of the skin and the character of the hair_ ... but it will\n  not, we think, stand the test of a serious examination....\u201d\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n  _Ibid._, p. 453: \u201cThe Cingalese are described by Dr. Davy as varying\n  in colour from light brown to black. The prevalent hue of their hair\n  and eyes is black, but hazel eyes and brown hair are not very\n  uncommon; grey eyes and red hair are occasionally seen, though rarely,\n  and sometimes the light blue or red eye and flaxen hair of the\n  Albino.\u201d\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n  _Edinburgh Review_, \u201cThe Samoyedes, Tungusians, and others living on\n  the borders of the Icy Sea have a dirty brown or swarthy complexion.\u201d\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n  _Ibid._, p. 439.\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n  _Ibid._, p. 439 (summarized).\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n  Hammer, _Geschichte des Osmanischen Reichs_, vol. i, p. 2.\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n  Ritter, _Erdkunde, Asien_, vol. i, pp. 433, 1115, &c.; Tassen,\n  _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die Kunde des Morgenlandes_, vol. ii, p. 65; Benfey,\n  Ersch and Gruber\u2019s _Encyclop\u00e4die, Indien_, p. 12. A. von Humboldt\n  calls this fact one of the most important discoveries of our time\n  (_Asie centrale_, vol. ii, p. 639). From the point of view of\n  historical science this is absolutely true.\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n  Nushirwan, who reigned in the first half of the sixth century A.D.,\n  married Sharuz, daughter of the Turkish Khan. She was the most\n  beautiful woman of her time (Haneberg, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die Kunde des\n  Morgenlandes_, vol. i, p. 187). The Shahnameh gives many facts of the\n  same kind.\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n  Just as the Scythians, a Mongolian race, had adopted an Aryan tongue,\n  so there would be nothing surprising in the view that the Oghuzes were\n  an Aryan race, although they spoke a Finnish dialect. This theory is\n  curiously supported by a na\u00efve phrase of the traveller Rubruquis, who\n  was sent by St. Louis to the ruler of the Mongols. \u201cI was struck,\u201d\n  says the good monk, \u201cby the likeness borne by this prince to the late\n  M. Jean de Beaumont, who was equally ruddy and fresh-looking.\u201d\n  Alexander von Humboldt, interested, as he well might be, by such a\n  remark, adds with no less good sense, \u201cThis point of physiognomy is\n  especially worth noting if we remember that the family of Tchingiz was\n  probably Turkish, and not Mongolian.\u201d He confirms his conclusion by\n  adding that \u201cthe absence of Mongolian characteristics strikes us also\n  in the portraits which we have of the descendants of Baber, the rulers\n  of India\u201d (_Asie centrale_, vol. i, p. 248 _and note_).\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n  Hammer, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 448: \u201cThe battle against the Hungarians\n  was hotly contested and the booty considerable. So many boys and girls\n  were seized that the most beautiful female slave was exchanged for a\n  jackboot, and Ashik-Pacha-Zadeh, the historian, who himself took part\n  in the battle and the plunder, could not sell five boy-slaves at Skopi\n  for more than 500 piastres.\u201d\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n  \u201cEthnology,\u201d &c., p. 439: \u201cThe Hungarian nobility ... is proved by\n  historical and philological evidence to have been a branch of the\n  great Northern Asiatic stock, closely allied in blood to the stupid\n  and feeble Ostiaks and the untamable Laplanders.\u201d\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n  _Essai historique sur l\u2019origine des Hongrois_ (Paris, 1844).\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n  The current opinions about the peoples of Central Asia will, it seems,\n  have to be greatly modified. It can no longer be denied that the blood\n  of the yellow races has been crossed more or less considerably by a\n  white strain. This fact was not suspected before, but it throws a\n  doubt on all the ancient notions on the subject, which must now be\n  revised in the light of it. Alexander von Humboldt makes a very\n  important observation with regard to the Kirghiz-Kasaks, who are\n  mentioned by Menander of Byzantium and Constantine Porphyrogenetes. He\n  rightly shows that when the former speaks of a Kirghiz (\u03a7\u03b5\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c2)\n  concubine given by the Turkish Shagan Dithubul to Zemarch, the envoy\n  of the Emperor Justin II, in 569, he is referring to a girl of mixed\n  blood. She corresponds exactly to the beautiful Turkish girls who are\n  so praised by the Persians, and who were as little Mongolian in type\n  as this Kirghiz (_Asie centrale_, vol. i, p. 237, &c.; vol. ii, pp.\n  130\u201331).\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n  Schaffarik, _Slavische Altert\u00fcmer_, vol. i, p. 279 _et pass._\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n  Aug. Thierry, _Histoire de la Conqu\u00eate d\u2019Angleterre_, vol. i, p. 155.\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n  Lyell, \u201cPrinciples of Geology,\u201d vol. i, p. 178.\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n  Link, _Die Urwelt und das Altertum_, vol. i, p. 84.\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n  Link, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 91.\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n  Cuvier, _op. cit._ Compare also, on this point, the opinion of\n  Alexander von Humboldt: \u201cIn the epochs preceding the existence of the\n  human race the action of the forces in the interior of the globe must,\n  as the earth\u2019s crust increased in thickness, have modified the\n  temperature of the air and made the whole earth habitable by the\n  products which we now regard as exclusively tropical. Afterwards the\n  spatial relation of our planet to the central body (the sun) began, by\n  means of radiation and cooling down, to be almost the sole agent in\n  determining the climate at different latitudes. It was also in these\n  primitive times that the elastic fluids, or volcanic forces, inside\n  the earth, more powerful than they are to-day, made their way through\n  the oxidized and imperfectly solidified crust of our planet\u201d (_Asie\n  centrale_, vol. i, p. 47).\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n  Second edition, pp. 92\u20134. The man was born in 1727.\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n  _See_ Genesis ii, 8, 10, 15.\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n  Lyell, \u201cPrinciples of Geology,\u201d vol. ii, p. 119.\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n  Alexander von Humboldt does not think that this hypothesis can apply\n  to the migration of plants. \u201cWhat we know,\u201d he says, \u201cof the\n  deleterious action exerted by sea-water, during a voyage of 500 or 600\n  leagues, over the reproductive power of most grains, does not favour\n  the theory of the migration of vegetables by means of ocean currents.\n  Such a theory is too general and comprehensive\u201d (_Examen critique de\n  l\u2019histoire de la g\u00e9ographie du nouveau continent_, vol. ii, p. 78).\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n  Alexander von Humboldt gives the law determining these facts in the\n  following passage (_Asie centrale_, vol. iii, p. 23): \u201cThe foundation\n  of the science of climatology is the accurate knowledge of the\n  inequalities of a continent\u2019s surface (hypsometry). Without this\n  knowledge we are apt to attribute to elevation what is really the\n  effect of other causes, acting, in low-lying regions, on a surface of\n  which the curve is continuous with that of the sea, along the\n  isothermic lines (i.e. lines along which the temperature is the\n  same).\u201d By calling attention to the multiplicity of influences acting\n  on the temperature of any given geographical point, Von Humboldt shows\n  how very different conditions of climate may exist in places that are\n  quite near each other, independently of their height above sea-level.\n  Thus in the north-east of Ireland, on the Glenarn coast, there is a\n  region, on the same parallel of latitude as K\u00f6nigsberg in Prussia,\n  which produces myrtles growing in the open air quite as vigorously as\n  in Portugal; this region is in striking contrast with those round it.\n  \u201cThere are hardly any frosts in winter, and the heat in summer is not\n  enough to ripen the grapes.... The pools and small lakes of the Faroe\n  Islands are not frozen over during the winter, in spite of the\n  latitude (62\u00b0).... In England, on the Devonshire coast, the myrtle,\n  the camelia iaponica, the fuchsia coccinea, and the Boddleya globosa\n  flourish in the open, unsheltered, throughout the winter.... At\n  Salcombe the winters are so mild that orange-trees have been seen,\n  with fruit on them, sheltered by a wall and protected merely by\n  screens\u201d (pp. 147\u201348).\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n  I will explain in due course the reasons why I do not include the\n  American Indian as a pure and primitive type. I have already given\n  indications of my view on p. 112. Here I merely subscribe to the\n  opinion of Flourens, who also recognizes only three great subdivisions\n  of the species\u2014those of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The names call for\n  criticism but the divisions are in the main correct.\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n  Carus gives his powerful support to the law I have laid down, namely\n  that the civilizing races are especially prone to mix their blood. He\n  points out the immense variety of elements composing the perfected\n  human organism, as against the simplicity of the infinitesimal beings\n  on the lowest step in the scale of creation. He deduces the following\n  axiom: \u201cWhenever there is an extreme likeness between the elements of\n  an organic whole, its state cannot be regarded as the expression of a\n  complete and final development, but is merely primitive and\n  elementary\u201d (_\u00dcber die ungleiche Bef\u00e4higkeit der verschiedenen\n  Menschheitst\u00e4mme f\u00fcr h\u00f6here geistige Entwickelung_, p. 4). In another\n  place he says: \u201cThe greatest possible diversity (_i.e._ inequality) of\n  the parts, together with the most complete unity of the whole, is\n  clearly, in every sphere, the standard of the highest perfection of an\n  organism.\u201d In the political world this is the state of a society where\n  the governing classes are racially quite distinct from the masses,\n  while being themselves carefully organised into a strict hierarchy.\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n  Flourens (_Eloge de Blumenbach_, p. xi) describes the Polynesian race\n  as \u201ca mixture of two others, the _Caucasian_ and the Mongolian.\u201d\n  _Caucasian_ is probably a mere slip; he certainly meant _black_.\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n  The physiological characteristics of the ancestors are reproduced in\n  their descendants according to fixed rules. Thus we see in South\n  America that though the children of a white man and a negress may have\n  straight soft hair, yet the crisp woolly hair invariably appears in\n  the second generation (A. d\u2019Orbigny, _l\u2019Homme am\u00e9ricain_, vol. i, p.\n  143).\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n  It may be remarked that the happiest blend, from the point of view of\n  beauty, is that made by the marriage of white and black. We need only\n  put the striking charm of many mulatto, Creole, and quadroon women by\n  the side of such mixtures of yellow and white as the Russians and\n  Hungarians. The comparison is not to the advantage of the latter. It\n  is no less certain that a beautiful Rajput is more ideally beautiful\n  than the most perfect Slav.\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n  _See_ (among other authorities), for the American aborigine, Martius\n  and Spix, _Reise in Brasilien_, vol. i, p. 259; for the negroes,\n  Pruner, _Der Neger, eine aphoristische Skizze aus der medizinischen\n  Topographie von Cairo_, in the _Zeitschrift der Deutschen\n  morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, vol. i, p. 131; for the muscular\n  superiority of the white race over all the others, Carus, _op. cit._,\n  p. 84.\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n  Am\u00e9d\u00e9e Thierry, _Histoire de la Gaule sous l\u2019administration romaine_,\n  vol. i, p. 241.\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n  One is sometimes led to consider the government of the United States\n  of America as an original creation, peculiar to our time; its most\n  remarkable feature is taken to be the small amount of opportunity left\n  for Government initiative or even interference. Yet if we cast our\n  eyes over the early years of all the States founded by the white race,\n  we shall find exactly the same phenomenon. \u201cSelf-government\u201d is no\n  more triumphant in New York to-day, than it was in Paris at the time\n  of the Franks. It is true that the Indians are treated far less\n  humanely by the Americans than the Gallo-Romans were by the nobles of\n  Chlodwig. But we must remember that the racial difference between the\n  enlightened Republicans of the New World and their victims is far\n  greater than that between the Germanic conqueror and those he\n  conquered.\n\n  In fact, _all_ Aryan societies began by exaggerating their\n  independence as against the law and the magistrates.\n\n  The power of political invention possessed by the world cannot, I\n  think, travel outside the boundaries traced by two particular peoples,\n  one of them living in the north-east of Europe, the other on the banks\n  of the Nile, in the extreme south of Egypt. The Government of the\n  first of these peoples (in Bolgari, near Kazan) was accustomed to\n  \u201corder men of intelligence to be hanged\u201d as a preventive measure. We\n  owe our knowledge of this interesting fact to the Arabian traveller\n  Ibn Foszlan (A. von Humboldt, _Asie centrale_, vol. i, p. 494). In the\n  other nation, living at Fazoql, whenever the king did not give\n  satisfaction, his relations and ministers came and told him so. They\n  informed him that since he no longer pleased \u201cthe men, women,\n  children, oxen, asses,\u201d &c., the best thing he could do was to die;\n  they then proceeded to help him to his death as speedily as possible\n  (Lepsius, _Briefe aus \u00c4gypten, \u00c4thiopien, und der Halbinsel des\n  Sinai_; Berlin, 1852).\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n  Am\u00e9d\u00e9e Thierry, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 241.\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n  Martius and Spix, _Reise in Brasilien_, vol. iii, p. 950, &c.\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n  In many tribes of Oceania the institution of marriage is conceived as\n  follows:\u2014A man sees a maiden, who, he thinks, will suit him. He\n  obtains her from her father, by means of a few presents, among which a\n  bottle of brandy, if he has been able to get one, holds the most\n  distinguished place. Then the young suitor proceeds to conceal himself\n  in a thicket, or behind a rock. The maiden passes by, thinking no\n  harm. He knocks her down with a blow of his stick, beats her until she\n  becomes unconscious, and carries her lovingly to his house, bathed in\n  her blood. The formalities have been complied with, and the legal\n  union is accomplished.\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n  D\u2019Orbigny tells how Indian mothers love their children to distraction,\n  and take such care of them as to be really their slaves. If however\n  the child annoys the mother at any time, then she drowns him or\n  crushes him to death, or abandons him in the forest, without any\n  regret. I know no other example of such an extraordinary change\n  (D\u2019Orbigny, _L\u2019Homme am\u00e9ricain_, vol. ii, p. 232).\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n  \u201cThe native Indian trade in books is very active, and many of the\n  works produced are never seen in the libraries of Europeans, even in\n  India. Sprenger says, in a letter, that in Lucknow alone there are\n  thirteen lithographic establishments occupied purely in printing\n  school-books, and he gives a considerable list of works of which\n  probably not one has reached Europe. The same is the case at Delhi,\n  Agra, Cawnpore, Allahabad, and other towns\u201d (Mohl, _Rapport annuel \u00e0\n  la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 asiatique_, 1851, p. 92).\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n  \u201cThe Siamese are the most shameless people in the world. They are at\n  the lowest point of Indo-Chinese civilization; and yet they can all\n  read and write\u201d (Ritter, _Erdkunde, Asien_, vol. iii, p. 1152).\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n  Prichard, \u201cNatural History of Man,\u201d sec. 41.\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n  King of Palmyra in Syria, and husband of Zenobia. He was recognized by\n  the Emperor Gallienus as co-regent of the East in 267, and was\n  murdered in the same year.\u2014Tr.\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n  \u201cThe impulse towards this science given them by their kinship with the\n  Gr\u00e6co-Syrians made them capable of really absorbing the Greek language\n  and spirit; for the Arabs preferred to confine themselves to the\n  purely scientific results of Greek speculation\u201d (W. von Humboldt,\n  _\u00dcber die Kawi-Sprache_, Introduction, p. cclxiii).\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n  The severest judgment on the negro that has perhaps been passed up to\n  now comes from one of the pioneers of the doctrine of equality.\n  Franklin defines the negro as \u201can animal who eats as much, and works\n  as little, as possible.\u201d\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n  I have no hesitation in regarding the exaggerated development of\n  instinct among savage races as a specific mark of intellectual\n  inferiority. The sharpening of certain senses can only be gained by\n  the deterioration of the mental facilities. On this point, compare\n  what Lesson says of the Papuans, in a paper printed in the _Annales\n  des sciences naturelles_, vol. x.\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n  _See_ p. 139.\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n  W. von Humboldt, in one of the most brilliant of his minor works, has\n  admirably expressed this fact, in its essentials. \u201cIn language,\u201d he\n  says, \u201cthe work of time is helped everywhere by national\n  idiosyncrasies. The characteristic features in the idioms of the\n  warrior hordes of America and Northern Asia were not necessarily those\n  of the primitive races of India and Greece. It is not possible to\n  trace a perfectly equal, and as it were natural, development of any\n  language, whether it was spoken by one nation or many\u201d (W. von\n  Humboldt, _\u00dcber das Entstehen der grammatischen Formen, und ihren\n  Einfluss auf die Ideenentwickelung_).\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n  W. von Humboldt, _\u00dcber die Kawi-Sprache_, Introduction.\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n  I am inclined to believe that the monosyllabic quality of Chinese is\n  not really a specific mark of the language at all; and though a\n  striking characteristic, it does not seem to be an essential one. If\n  it were, Chinese would be an \u201cisolating\u201d language, connected with\n  others having the same structure. We know that this is not so. Chinese\n  belongs to the Tatar or Finnish system, of which some branches are\n  polysyllabic. On the other hand, we find monosyllabic languages among\n  groups with quite a different origin. I do not lay any stress on the\n  example of Othomi, a Mexican dialect which, according to du Ponceau,\n  has the monosyllabic quality of Chinese, and yet in other respects\n  belongs to the American family among which it is found, as Chinese\n  does to the Tatar group (_see_ Morton, \u201cAn Inquiry into the\n  Distinctive Characteristics of the aboriginal race of America,\u201d\n  Philadelphia, 1844). My reason for neglecting this apparently\n  important example is that these American languages may one day be\n  recognized as forming merely a vast branch of the Tatar family; and\n  thus any conclusion I might draw from them would simply go to confirm\n  what I have said as to the relation of Chinese to the surrounding\n  dialects, a relation which is in no way disproved by the peculiar\n  character of Chinese itself.\n\n  I find therefore a more conclusive instance in Coptic, which will not\n  easily be shown to have any relation to Chinese. But here also every\n  syllable is a root; and the simple affixes that modify the root are so\n  independent that even the determining particle that marks the time of\n  the verb does not always remain joined to the word. Thus _hon_ means\n  \u201cto command\u201d; _a-hon_, \u201che commanded\u201d; but _a Moyses hon_, \u201cMoses\n  commanded\u201d (_see_ E. Meier, _Hebr\u00e4isches Wurzelw\u00f6rterbuch_).\n\n  Thus it seems possible for monosyllabism to appear in every linguistic\n  family. It is a kind of infirmity produced by causes which are not yet\n  understood; it is not however a specific feature, separating the\n  language in which it occurs from the rest, and setting it in a class\n  by itself.\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n  Goethe says in _Wilhelm Meister_: \u201cFew Germans, and perhaps few men of\n  modern nations, have the sense of an \u00e6sthetic whole. We only know how\n  to praise and blame details, we can only show a fragmentary\n  admiration.\u201d\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n  _Cf._ W. von Humboldt, _\u00dcber die Kawi-Sprache_, Introduction, p. xcv:\n  \u201cWe may call the sound that imitates the meaning of a word _symbolic_,\n  although the symbolic element in speech goes far deeper than this....\n  This kind of imitation undoubtedly had a great, and perhaps exclusive,\n  influence over the early attempts at word-building.\u201d\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n  There is probably another jargon of the same kind as Bala\u00efbalan. This\n  is called \u201cAfnsko\u00eb,\u201d and is spoken by the pedlars and horse-dealers of\n  Greater Russia, especially in the province of Vladimir. It is confined\n  to men. The grammar is entirely Russian, though the roots are foreign.\n  (_See_ Pott, Ersch and Gruber\u2019s _Encyclop\u00e4die, Indogermanischer\n  Sprachstamm_, p. 110.)\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n  C. O. M\u00fcller, in an admirable passage which I cannot resist the\n  temptation of transcribing, shows the true nature of language: \u201cOur\n  age has learnt, by the study of the Hindu and especially the Germanic\n  languages, that the laws of speech are as fixed as those of organic\n  life. Between different dialects, developing independently after their\n  separation, there are still mysterious links, which reciprocally\n  determine the sounds and their sequences. Literature and science set\n  limits to this growth, and arrest perhaps some of its richer\n  developments; but they cannot impose any law on it higher than that\n  ordained by nature, mother of all things. Even a long time before the\n  coming of decadence and bad taste, languages may fall sick, from\n  outward or inward causes, and suffer vast changes; but so long as life\n  remains in them, their innate power is enough to heal their wounds, to\n  set their torn limbs, and to restore unity and regularity, even when\n  the beauty and perfection of the noble plants has almost entirely\n  disappeared\u201d (_Die Etrusker_, p. 65).\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n  Pott, _op. cit._, p. 74.\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n  That the mixture of idioms is proportionate to that of the races\n  constituting a nation had already been noticed before philology, in\n  the modern sense, existed at all. K\u00e4mpfer for example says in his\n  \u201cHistory of Japan\u201d (published in 1729): \u201cWe may take it as a fixed\n  rule that the settlement of foreigners in a country will bring a\n  corresponding proportion of foreign words into the language; these\n  will be naturalized by degrees, and become as familiar as the native\n  words themselves.\u201d\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n  Keferstein shows that German is merely a hybrid language made up of\n  Celtic and Gothic (_Ansichten \u00fcber die keltischen Altert\u00fcmer_, Halle,\n  1846\u201351; Introduction, p. xxxviii). Grimm is of the same opinion.\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n  W. von Humboldt says: \u201cLanguages, that are apparently crude and\n  unrefined, may show some striking qualities in their structure, and\n  often do so. In this respect they may quite possibly surpass more\n  highly developed tongues. The comparison of Birman with Delaware, not\n  to speak of Mexican, can leave no doubt of the superiority of the\n  latter; yet a strand of Indian culture has certainly been interwoven\n  into Birman by Pali\u201d (_\u00dcber die Kawi-Sprache_, Introduction, p.\n  xxxiv).\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n  This difference of level between the intellect of the conqueror and\n  that of the conquered is the cause of the \u201csacred languages\u201d that we\n  find used in the early days of an empire; such as that of the\n  Egyptians, or the Incas of Peru. These languages are the object of a\n  superstitious veneration; they are the exclusive property of the upper\n  classes, and often of a sacerdotal caste, and they furnish the\n  strongest possible proof of the existence of a foreign race that has\n  conquered the country where they are found.\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n  W. von Humboldt, _\u00dcber die Kawi-Sprache_, Introduction, p. xxxiv.\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n  _See_ p. 82 above.\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n  Ancient Greece contained many dialects, but not so many as the Greece\n  of the sixteenth century, when seventy were counted by Simeon\n  Kavasila; further we may notice (in connexion with the following\n  paragraph) that in the thirteenth century French was spoken throughout\n  Greece, and especially in Attica (Heilmayer, quoted by Pott, _op.\n  cit._, p. 73).\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n  The Hebrews themselves did not call their language \u201cHebrew\u201d; they\n  called it, quite properly, the \u201clanguage of Canaan\u201d (Isaiah xix, 18).\n  Compare Roediger\u2019s preface to the Hebrew grammar of Gesenius (16th\n  edition, Leipzig, 1851, p. 7 _et passim_).\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n  This is also the view of W. Edwards (\u201cPhysical Characteristics of the\n  Human Races\u201d).\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n  Besides the Jews, I might also mention the Gipsies. There is, further,\n  the case where a people speaks two languages. In Grisons almost all\n  the peasants of the Engadine speak Roumansch and German with equal\n  facility, the former among themselves, the latter to foreigners. In\n  Courland there is a district where the peoples speak Esthonian (a\n  Finnish dialect) to each other and Lithuanian to every one else (Pott,\n  _op. cit._, p. 104).\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n  _See_ pp. 97\u2013102.\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n  The way was not so long from rustic Latin, _lingua rustica Romanorum_,\n  to the _lingua romana_ and thence to corruption, as it was from the\n  classical tongue, the precise and elaborate forms of which offered\n  more resistance to decay. We may add that, as every foreign legionary\n  brought his own provincial patois into the Gallic colonies, the advent\n  of a common dialect was hastened, not merely by the Celts, but by the\n  immigrants themselves.\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n  Sulp. Severus, _Dial. I de virtutibus monachorum orientalium_.\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n  Both troubadours who flourished in the latter half of the twelfth\n  century.\u2014Tr.\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n  Macaulay, \u201cHistory of England,\u201d _ad init._ The Albigenses are the\n  special favourites of revolutionary writers, especially in Germany\n  (_see_ Lenau\u2019s poem, _Die Albigenser_). Nevertheless the sectaries of\n  Languedoc were recruited mainly from the knightly orders and the\n  dignitaries of the Church. Their doctrines were indeed anti-social;\n  and for this reason much may be pardoned to them.\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n  See the curious remarks of G\u00e9nin in his preface to the _Chanson de\n  Roland_ (edited 1851).\n\nFootnote 137:\n\n  _See_ Hickes, _Thesaurus litteratur\u00e6 septentrionalis_; also\n  _L\u2019Histoire litt\u00e9raire de France_, vol. xvii, p. 633.\n\nFootnote 138:\n\n  Published in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_.\n\nFootnote 139:\n\n  P. P\u00e2ris, _Garin le Loherain_, preface.\n\nFootnote 140:\n\n  It may however be observed that the accent of Vaud and Savoy has a\n  southern ring, strongly reminiscent of the colony of Aventicum.\n\nFootnote 141:\n\n  _See_ p. 43.\n\nFootnote 142:\n\n  Pott brings out very well the fact that the different dialects\n  maintain the balance between the blood of a race and its language,\n  when he says, \u201cDialects are the diversity in unity, the prismatic\n  sections of the monochromatic light and the primordial One\u201d (Ersch and\n  Gruber\u2019s _Encyclop\u00e4die_, p. 66). The phraseology is obscure; but it\n  shows his meaning clearly enough.\n\nFootnote 143:\n\n  This caution applies only when the history of a single people is in\n  question, not that of a group of peoples. Although one nation may\n  sometimes change its language, this never happens, and could not\n  happen, in the case of a complex of nationalities, racially identical\n  though politically independent. The Jews have given up their national\n  speech; but the Semitic nations as a whole can neither lose their\n  native dialects nor acquire others.\n\nFootnote 144:\n\n  \u201cTaste and smell in the negro are as powerful as they are\n  undiscriminating. He eats everything, and odours which are revolting\n  to us are pleasant to him\u201d (Pruner).\n\nFootnote 145:\n\n  Carus, _op. cit._, p. 60.\n\nFootnote 146:\n\n  Martius observes that the European is superior to the coloured man in\n  the pressure of the nervous fluid (_Reise in Brasilien_, vol. i, p.\n  259).\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                            THE RENAISSANCE\n\n                      BY COUNT ARTHUR DE GOBINEAU\n\n    TRANSLATED BY PAUL V. COHN, WITH AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY ON COUNT\n              GOBINEAU\u2019S LIFE AND WORK, BY DR. OSCAR LEVY\n\n               One Volume, Demy 8vo, Illustrated, 10s net\n\n                       LONDON: WILLIAM HEINEMANN\n\n\nThese five historical dramas cover the flowering time of the Italian\nRenaissance from the rise to prominence of Savonarola (1492) to the last\ndays of Michael Angelo (about 1560). While grouped round the leading\nfigures who provide the titles\u2014Savonarola, Cesare Borgia, Julius II, Leo\nX, and Michael Angelo\u2014the plays introduce almost every interesting\ncharacter of the period. Nor are we only concerned with the great names;\nthe author aims at catching the spirit of the people, and the thoughts\nand feelings of soldier, artisan, trader, and their womenfolk find ample\nvoice in his pages.\n\nThe Italian Renaissance is an epoch of peculiar interest to English\nreaders, not least because of its profound influence on our own\nElizabethan age. It is perhaps the most many-sided period in history:\neven fifth-century Greece scarcely contributed so much\u2014or at any rate so\nmuch that has survived-to the world of politics, art, and thought. Now\nwhile this interest is amply reflected in contemporary literature, from\nthe monumental work of Symonds down to the flotsam and jetsam of\neveryday fiction, there is one kind of man who more than an historian\nwould show insight into this age, and that is a poet.\n\nIt is as a poet\u2019s work that Gobineau\u2019s \u201cHistorical Scenes\u201d recommend\nthemselves to the public. But there are many kinds of poets; there is\nthe religious and moral kind, there is the irreligious and sub-moral\nkind, and there is the super-religious and super-moral kind. Only the\nlast-named can understand, can feel, can sympathise with such mighty\nfigures as Cesare Borgia and Julius II\u2014the religious poet being inclined\nto paint them as monsters, the sub-religious as freaks and neurotics.\n_Similia similibus_: equals can only be recognised by their equals, and\nGobineau was himself a type of the Renaissance flung by destiny into an\nage of low bourgeois and socialist ideals. In a century swayed by\nromanticism and democracy, Gobineau was a classic and an aristocrat. He\nis a forerunner of Nietzsche (\u201cthe only European spirit I should care to\nconverse with,\u201d said Nietzsche of him in a letter), and as such is\npeculiarly fitted to deal with one of the few periods that was _not_\ndominated by the moral law. For this reason Gobineau cannot fail to\nattract the large and evergrowing circle of students of Nietzsche in\nthis country and America.\n\n  \u201cI can only add that this is a volume of serious import, worth reading\n  from cover to cover, a book which even a jaded reviewer closes with a\n  sigh of regret that he has not got to read it all over again.\u201d\u2014G. S.\n  LAYARD in the _Bookman_.\n\n  \u201cWe scarcely know whether to be more struck with the truth or\n  liveliness of these portraits. Savonarola, for example, is something\n  more than the Savonarola of history and tradition. Not only is the\n  character of the man subtly brought out; not only are we made aware,\n  for the first time, adequately, of that devouring egotism which could\n  see nothing but self as God\u2019s instrument, self as the scourge of\n  Florence, self as the inspired prophet; but beneath all this and\n  vouching for it is the consciousness of the reality of the man, the\n  consciousness that his cries of distress are real cries, and his\n  moments of fierce aspiration and black despair genuine experiences.\n  More touching and even more lifelike is the figure of Michael Angelo,\n  a figure in the main familiar to us, but endowed with advancing years\n  with a peace of mind, a lucidity of intelligence, and a breadth of\n  sympathy such as were foreign to its young and stormy epoch. The last\n  scene between Michael Angelo and Vittoria Colonna is a noble one, and\n  can be read more than once with pleasure.\u201d\u2014_The Morning Post._\n\n  \u201cA debt is due to Dr. Oscar Levy for bringing before English readers\n  this translation of that great work of Count Gobineau, in which,\n  through the medium of the drama, he reveals his reverence for the\n  spirit that inspired the Italian Renaissance. The plays constituting\n  the book are five in number, \u2018Savonarola,\u2019 \u2018Cesare Borgia,\u2019 \u2018Julius\n  II,\u2019 \u2018Leo X,\u2019 and \u2018Michael Angelo,\u2019\u2014and nothing more brilliant has\n  appeared in recent times. In scope we can only compare with it Mr.\n  Hardy\u2019s \u2018Dynasts,\u2019 but no more striking contrast could be conceived\n  than the creations of these two geniuses. Through the pages of these\n  plays moves the whole glittering pageant of the fifteenth and\n  sixteenth centuries, a mob of soldiers, priests, artists, men and\n  women, slaying, plundering, preaching, poisoning, painting, rioting,\n  and loving, while out of the surgent mass rise the figures of the\n  splendid three, Borgia, Julius, and Michael Angelo, dominating all by\n  the sheer greatness of their ideas and their contempt for other men\u2019s\n  opinions. They are the great aristocrats of their time, and the five\n  plays\u2014really one in conception\u2014are an assertion of the saving grace of\n  aristocracy, of the glory of race, at a time when the democratic\n  flood, whose source is Christianity, was beginning to pour over\n  Europe, to the overwhelming of all greatness of thought and art. The\n  translation, which is excellent, is by Paul V. Cohn.\u201d\u2014_Glasgow\n  Herald._\n\n\n                       LONDON: WILLIAM HEINEMANN\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                          TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTES\n\n\n 1. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in\n      spelling.\n 2. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed.\n 3. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.","title":"The inequality of human races","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":83516}